Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
HIGHER HISTORY
REVISION NOTES
The Scottish Wars of
Independence
1249–1328
The Scottish Wars of Independence, 1249–1328
The death of King Alexander III in 1286, and the subsequent death of his heir, Margaret, the Maid of Norway in 1290, plunged Scotland into a succession crisis. There was a risk of civil war breaking out amongst the nobles and so Edward I of England was asked to help.
John Balliol was chosen by Edward as king in 1292. Balliol was subject to a series of humiliations and finally refused to send troops to help Edward’s fight in France. This sparked the conflict between Scotland and England which would last until 1328. Men such as William Wallace and Robert the Bruce rose to prominence in their campaigns against Edward, in their search for recognition for Scotland’s independence.
Page 2 of 65
Contents
How to answer Source questions Page 3-5(How fully? How useful? Comparison)
Exam question topics / key revision themesPages 6-7
Exam question sources - identities Pages 8-9
Background information Page 10
The reign of Alexander III Page 11
Scotland 1286-1296: Succession problem and the Great Cause Overview Page 12 Events Page 13 Key figures Pages 17-18 Historical debate Pages 19-20
John Balliol and Edward I Overview Page 22 Events Pages
23-25 Key figures Page 26 Historical debate Pages 27-28 Primary sources Page 29
William Wallace and Scottish resistance Overview Page 30 Events Pages
31-34 Key figures Pages 35-37 Historical debate Pages 38-40
Rise and triumph of Robert the Bruce Overview Page 41
How fully? questionsThese questions are worth up to 9 marks.
Page 3 of 65
As in National 5, remember to use A-I-D to answer these questions (Answer, Includes, Doesn’t include).
• You can get up to 3 marks for identifying relevant facts from the source
• You can get up 7 marks for identifying relevant facts from your own knowledge which are not included in the source
• NOTE: If you do not answer the question (explain how useful the source is) you will only get a maximum of 2 marks.
Example How fully? answer
Source B explains the reasons why people left Scotland fairly well.
The source mentions the potato famine in the Highlands in 1846 which led to large numbers of people leaving rather than starving. (1 mark for relevant fact from source) It mentions specifically how landlords evicted crofters to make way for sheep farming in order to make their land profitable. (1 mark for relevant fact from source) It also talks about the terrible living conditions which drove people to look for a better life abroad, such as the prevalence of diseases like cholera. (1 mark for relevant fact from source)
However the source does not mention all of the reasons why people left Scotland. It fails to mention the decline of the kelp industry which forced Scots to look for work elsewhere. (1 mark for a relevant point from own knowledge) Also when the herring industry declined after World War One many people left Scotland. (1 mark for a relevant point from own knowledge) Other workers, such as handloom weavers from the Western Isles, left as they couldn’t compete with new factories in the towns and cities in the central belt. (1 mark for a relevant point from own knowledge)
Marks 6/9
Page 4 of 65
‘Evaluate the usefulness’ questions
These questions are worth up to 6 marks.
As in National 5, you will get 1 mark for each valid piece of information:
• Origin Who made the source? And why does it matter?When was the source made? And why does it matter?Type of source? And why does this matter?Why was the source made?
• Relevant facts from the source (up to 2 marks)• Relevant facts from your recall (up to 2 marks)
Your answers have to be more detailed than National 5.
Example ‘Usefulness’ answer
Source A is useful as evidence of Scottish involvement on the Western Front because it is from a diary of an officer from the Black Watch who will be well informed about the Scots’ military involvement at the Battle of Loos. (1 mark for Origin: Authorship) As it is a diary it is also useful as it will give an eyewitness account of the battle. (1 mark for Origin: Purpose)
The source was written at the end of October, 1915 which makes it useful because it was written in the immediate aftermath of the battle. (1 mark for Origin: Timing)
The content is useful about the Scots’ role in World War one because it tells us how many Scots soldiers died (19 officers, 230 men). (1 mark for source content) It is also useful as the Black Watch were part of 30,000 Scots who fought at Loos, showing a great deal of Scottish involvement. (1 mark for own knowledge)
However the source does not describe other ways the Scots were involved. The Scot General Douglas Haig made a huge contribution to the
Page 5 of 65
war as he was Commander-in-Chief of British forces after 1915. (1 mark for own knowledge)
Comparison questionsThese questions are worth up to 5 marks.
1 mark = overall comparison of the two source views e.g. “both sources agree Wallace was victorious”
1 mark = developed overall comparison
1 mark = specific comparison plus evidence/quotes*
• * Note the change from National 5
Example Comparison answer
Sources A and B agree that Hugh Cressingham was killed and skinned by the Scots after the battle. Source A says Cressingham, a leader amongst the English knights, was killed during the battle and later skinned. Source B agrees when it says “the treacherer Cressingham was skinned following his death in battle”. (1 mark for a comparison supported by quotes from source)
Sources A and B agree that William Wallace and Andrew Murray were leaders of the Scots at Stirling and that the Scots were victorious. (1 mark for overall comparison) However they disagree about the importance of the English mistakes made by English leader, Warrenne in the Scots’ victory. (1 mark for developing the overall comparison)
Marks 3/5
Page 6 of 65
Exam questions topics
2015 exam paper (New Higher) Succession problem in Scotland, 1286-1296 (HF)
Relationship between Edward I and John Balliol (C)
Reasons for Bruce’s success in maintaining Scotland’s independence (Ev)
2014 SQA specimen paper (New Higher) Succession problem in Scotland, 1286-1296 (HF)
Scottish resistance to Edward I, 1296-1305 (Ev)
Rise of Robert the Bruce (C)
P+N sample paper 2014 (New Higher) Events of the Award of Norham in 1291 (C)
Relationship between King John Balliol and King Edward (Ev)
Growth of Scottish resistance to English rule (HF)
______________________________________
2014 exam (Old Higher) Edward’s resolution of the Great Cause (HF)
Balliol’s difficulties in ruling Scotland, 1292-1296 (Ev)
Scottish resistance to Edward I, 1296-1305 (HF)
Ambitions of Robert the Bruce (C)
2013 exam (Old Higher) Succession problem in Scotland, 1286-1296 (HF)
Subjugation of Scotland by Edward I (C)
Growth of Scottish resistance to Edward I, 1296-1297 (Ev)
Robert the Bruce’s abilities as a military leader (HF)
2012 exam (Old Higher)
Page 7 of 65
Success of Scots’ attempts to protect their independence after Alexander III’s death (C)
Subjugation of Scots by Edward in 1296 (Ev)
Changing military balance between Scotland & England, 1298-1301 (HF)
Reasons for success of Robert the Bruce in maintaining Scotland’s independence (HF)
2011 exam (Old Higher) The Succession Crisis and Edward’s role (Ev)
Relationship between John Balliol and Edward I (HF)
The career of William Wallace (C)
Opposition of many Scots to Robert the Bruce (HF)
Exam revision – key themes
The below topics summarise the main issues which have been the subject of exam questions in recent years and may help you plan your revision.
Scotland 1286-1296 Problems faced after Alexander III’s death King Edward’s role in choosing a new Scottish king
John Balliol and Edward I Problems faced by John Balliol during his time as king King Edward’s actions to take control of Scotland (subjugation)
Wallace and Scottish resistance Actions of William Wallace Growth of Scottish resistance to King Edward, 1296-97 Scottish resistance to King Edward, 1296-1305
Robert the Bruce Bruce’s actions in taking control of Scotland, 1306-1309 The Scots’ success at the Battle of Bannockburn
Page 8 of 65
Bruce’s abilities as a military leader Bruce’s actions in winning Scottish independence after
Bannockburn
Exam question sources - identities
In an ‘Evaluate’ question you must identify the author of a primary source and explain their relevance to the subject. The tables below summarise some of the sources which could be used and suggest possible comments.
ChroniclesThe Scalacronica An account of British history until 1362; it
was written by an English knight imprisoned in Edinburgh Castle (whose father had fought at Bannockburn and in other battles)
Chronicle Majora
A series of chronicles, written by an English monk, detailing aspects of British history. Written using previous chronicles
Chronicle of Melrose
A series of chronicles, likely written by various Scottish monks at Melrose Abbey, detailing aspects of Scottish history up to 1270
Vita Edwardi Secundi
History of Edward II’s reign, written in 1326 by an English chronicler (possibly a lawyer and royal official). Includes detailed account of events at the Battle of Bannockburn
Chronicle of History of England from 1066 to 1346, Page 9 of 65
Walter of Guisborough
written by an English monk from Yorkshire (from a religious house founded by the Bruce family)
Chronicle of John of Fordun
History of Scotland, published by a priest in 1360; biased in favour of the Scots and against King Edward II
The Chronicle of Lanercost
History of north of England written by an English monk covering the years 1204-1346; includes eyewitness accounts but heavily biased against the Scots
The Scottichronicon
Written in the 1400s, partly using previous chronicles (including John of Fordun’s) and uses oral sources to describe extra facts about the life of King Robert the Bruce
Legal documentsExtract from a
Papal BullPapal Bulls are letters or charters issued by the Pope, explaining the Catholic Church’s opinion on particular issues
Extract from Treaty of
Birgham (1290)
Treaty agreed with King Edward to agree Scotland’s independence after Alexander II’s death (and stop Bruce/Balliol disputes)
Judgement of the English Court on William Wallace,
August 23rd 1305
Contemporary English account from Wallace’s trial, heavily biased against Wallace to show his guilt
Other documentsLubeck Letter Letter from Wallace and Murray to a
German town in 1297, encouraging them to trade with Scotland; supportive of Scots and anti-English
‘The Bruce’ poem by John Barbour
Poem written in the late-1300s by a Scottish archdeacon from Aberdeen. Written using accounts of Scottish soldiers and very pro-Scottish
‘The Wallace’ Poem written in 1488 by Scottish poet, Blind
Page 10 of 65
poem by Blind Harry
Harry; strongly anti-English and very biased towards Wallace. Considered to be inaccurate overall
Letter from Bishop Fraser to
Edward I
Letter written by William Fraser, a Scottish bishop, to encourage Edward to choose a new king for Scotland and avoid Scottish civil war
Background
Under the rule of Alexander III, Scotland had undergone a period of relative peace and prosperity. Alexander was able to expand the territory of Scotland and more of the population accepted royal authority. In 1263, the Scots won a victory over the Vikings at the Battle of Largs. The Treaty of Perth was signed in 1266 and gave recognition of the Scottish king’s authority over the west of Scotland and Isle of Man.
Alexander developed royal authority through the use of a feudal system of government. David I had overseen a period of Normanisation of the kingdom of Scotland and Alexander continued this process. Under a feudal system, the king owned all of the land and would grant land to important nobles in exchange for the promise of loyalty (fealty). A ceremony of homage was carried out to witness these promises of loyalty. The feudal system meant that nobles had a vested interest in remaining loyal to the king. If they broke their oath, they would lose the land they had been given.
Alexander also helped to develop the Scottish economy. Berwick upon Tweed became the most important trading port in Scotland. Scotland had become an exporter of goods such as wool, timber and fish. Linked to this economic growth, currency became more widely used, bearing the image of the king and further symbolising the growth in royal authority.
Page 11 of 65
The other major organ of power in Scotland was the church. The Scottish church had its independence recognised in a papal bull of 1192 and was given the status of ‘special daughter of Rome’. The bishops were powerful figures in the Scottish community, with wealth and authority. Scotland, however, had no archbishop of its own – a position which helps to explain the church’s support for Scottish independence. Without Scottish independence, it was far more likely that the Scottish church would be subsumed by the English church.
It is therefore clear that Scotland was becoming a more cohesive and mature kingdom during the reign of Alexander III. Furthermore, Alexander had a good relationship with Edward I of England, helped by his marriage to Edward’s sister.
The reign of Alexander III
Alexander’s early career
Alexander III became king at the age of eight, after the death of his father. His early years as king were overshadowed by the powerful regent (a noble who helps run the country until the king is old enough), Alan Durward. Durward was unpopular with many Scottish nobles and Alexander got rid of him with help from King Henry III of England.
In 1251, Alexander married Margaret, Henry III’s daughter, creating close ties with his southern neighbour. Henry awarded Alexander lands in England as a wedding gift, and the Scottish king agreed to Henry III being overlord for his English land. However, the young king was able to prevent Henry III extracting a similar oath about Scotland. Thus, Alexander was able to sidestep the English king’s desire to be overlord of the Scots.
English support
Page 12 of 65
The English king’s assistance was vital in the following years. Still a young man, the King of Scots’ government was under threat from rival Scottish nobles, particularly the powerful Comyn family. Alexander was kidnapped several times, and was forced to rely upon his father-in-law. However, by 1258, Henry III had more than enough problems at home, and Alexander was forced to rely upon himself. He summoned a parliament at Stirling and was able to unite the different factions of nobles behind his rule.
Alexander takes control
By 1260, Alexander was in full control of Scotland. He made a successful visit to England, where he met his father-in-law as an equal, successfully chastising Henry III for his failure to pay him the money he had been promised at his wedding. Returning home, Alexander decided to turn his attention to the Western Isles. His father, Alexander II, had unsuccessfully tried to extend royal Scottish power to the west and Alexander sent envoys to the King of Norway to try to negotiate the handing over of these islands, which had traditionally been in the hands of the Vikings.
The Battle of Largs
However, these peaceful attempts to annex the Western Isles failed, and the Scottish king turned to war. In 1263, the Viking king, Haakon IV of Norway, sailed for the Western Isles with a fleet of warships. Alexander had prepared for the invasion as best he could by strengthening Scottish castles and gathering in levies of troops.
Alexander’s forces waited for the Norwegians to land but a gale struck their fleet on 30 September, and many of Haakon’s ships were destroyed. Haakon eventually landed his men at Largs on 2 October, but retreated when the main body of the Scots army attacked him on the beach. In reality, the Battle of Largs was nothing more than a small skirmish, but it ended the threat of the Haakon, who died in Orkney later that year. This small skirmish had ended the Norwegian stranglehold of the Western Isles and left Alexander the king of all Scotland, and in 1264 he also invaded and seized the Isle of Man. The Treaty of Perth in 1266 saw the ownership of the Western Isles officially transferred to that of the King of Scots, a remarkable achievement for Alexander III.
Scotland 1286–96: The succession problem and the Great Cause
Overview
Alexander died in 1286, involved in an accident while travelling to see his new wife. His only surviving heir, his three-year-old granddaughter Margaret, daughter of King Eric of Norway, was sent for, but it was clear that a child so young would need a guardian to manage the kingdom until she was old enough to rule. Alexander had already secured the agreement of the nobles that Margaret was heir in the tailzie (decree) of 1284. The deaths of his three
Page 13 of 65
children by this date had created a potential crisis and Alexander hoped to ensure peace by guaranteeing the sucession.
Parliament was convened at Scone in April 1286, where six men were elected Guardians of Scotland and charged to protect the interests of their young queen and find her an appropriate husband. It was finally agreed at Salisbury that young Margaret would be betrothed to Edward, the son of King
Edward I of England, and brought over from Norway. The Scots negotiated what is often known as the Treaty of Birgham, which assured Scotland’s independence, despite the future union between the Scottish queen and the heir of England.
However, when young Margaret succumbed to illness on the voyage from Norway to Orkney, Scotland was left without an heir. As no one in the kingdom could be considered entirely impartial, King Edward of England was invited to assist in the selection of a new King of Scotland. Edward held court at Norham and then Berwick from May 1291, finally delivering his decision in November 1292: John Balliol was to be the next King of Scotland.
Events
The death of Alexander III (March 1286)
The death of Alexander III’s son and heir in 1284 had caused considerable uncertainty throughout the kingdom of Scotland. It was the desire to acquire a new heir that had led the King of Scots to remarry. It was while travelling to visit his new wife on a stormy night that tragedy struck. Alexander had finished some business at Edinburgh castle. He announced that it was his
Page 14 of 65
intention to travel on to Kinghorn, where his wife was waiting for him. His retainers and guards cautioned against travelling in such a storm.
However, Alexander ignored their pleas and duly set off into the night, with only a small escort. Somewhere in the dark, Alexander was separated from his escort and was never seen alive again. The next day his body was found, his neck broken, possibly due to a fall from his horse. Alexander III, King of Scots was dead, and Scotland was without a king.
For a few weeks after his death there was some hope that Alexander’s widow might be pregnant. While there would be complications with a minority monarch, these could be overcome. However, it soon became clear to all that the queen was not with child.
The Parliament of Scone (April 1286)
The main concern for the Parliament of Scone was to ensure a peaceful transition of authority to the next king or queen. Alexander did have one surviving heir, his three-year-old granddaughter, Margaret. Margaret, known as the Maid of Norway, was the daughter of the King of Norway. Her mother, Alexander’s own daughter, had died in childbirth. The succession of the Maid had been agreed in the tailzie of 1284. Accepting a three-year-old girl as heir was, however, fraught with problems:
Firstly, would she survive long enough to take the throne? Child mortality was high, even among noble-born children; many did not reach their fifth birthday. Her health was now a major concern for Scotland.
Secondly, who would be chosen as regent? The most powerful noble families distrusted each other. If one was picked, then how would they keep the other houses in line? The fear of civil war surrounded the discussion and was a very real threat.
Finally, who would she be married to? Surely a girl, even when grown up, would be unable to rule the country by herself. It was necessary for a suitable husband to take over the responsibilities. However, a Scottish husband would almost certainly have to come from one of the competing noble families. If one was chosen and not the other that in itself might lead to civil war. Equally problematic would be a foreign husband. Who could they trust to maintain the rights and responsibilities of the kingdom?
Despite these problems, the nobles gathered at a hastily called parliament at Scone in April 1286. The Scots nobles agreed to work together for the good of the kingdom, rather than for their individual benefit or glory. Two earls, two barons and two bishops were to rule Scotland until Margaret or her husband was able to take over. This was a remarkable show of maturity for the kingdom of Scots and its nobility. A minority ruler was not, in itself, a new thing, given that Alexander II and Alexander III had both been minorities; but they were male and did not live in Norway.
Page 15 of 65
The six elected men were given the title Guardians of Scotland, and set out looking for a suitable husband for Margaret. Eventually they agreed to negotiate with the English to arrange a marriage between Margaret and young Prince Edward, the son of Edward I. There was a fear that the guardians would be sidelined by Edward I and Eric, the King of Norway. Eric had been keen to see his daughter installed as queen of Scots, and had sent envoys to Edward I hoping to force the issue.
The Treaty of Salisbury (1289)
Both representatives of the Guardians of Scotland and the King of England had to negotiate with Margaret’s father as to if and when he would allow her to travel.
Further, Edward I was determined that he would not hand his son over in marriage unless Margaret was free of any previous marriage contracts and Scotland was a safe place for them to rule. Edward went further in the treaty, demanding that Margaret be handed over to him, to be raised in the English court, until Scotland was a safe place for her to return to.
At the time it was not seen as such an unusual stipulation to make. Different historians have their own opinions as to why Edward demanded this. Perhaps he had already begun to contemplate ways in which he could extend his authority over the kingdom of the Scots.
The Treaty of Birgham
In July 1290 the Scottish guardians sought concessions from the English upon the marriage. The document is very detailed and shows the safeguards that were put in place to preserve Scotland’s independence. Put simply, the treaty promised the following:
Edward I would respect the borders between England and Scotland and each country would remain separate.
Edward agreed that no parliament governing Scotland would be held in England.
Scottish laws, customs, rights and freedoms would be preserved. The Scottish church would remain free from interference from the
English church.
It is because Edward agreed to these demands that many historians do not believe he had any serious desire to pursue his claims of overlordship of Scotland at this time. However, other historians point out that at the same time as agreeing the treaty, Edward also chose to seize the Isle of Man from Scotland and he insisted the Bishop of Durham help to run Scotland in the name of Margaret.
Death of Margaret
Page 16 of 65
In September 1290, tragedy again befell Scotland. Margaret died on her way from Norway to Orkney. The exact cause of her death is not known, although it is likely that she caught pneumonia on the sea voyage and failed to recover.
Once again the threat of civil war materialised as Bruce was rumoured to be gathering troops. Fearful of the ambitions of Bruce, Bishop Fraser of St Andrews, one of the six guardians, wrote to Edward I, begging him to intercede. Edward agreed to decide between the 13 claimants for the vacant Scottish crown. For the most part the guardians were happy with this: both Balliol and Bruce believed they had the best argument, and that Edward would favour them. The others knew Edward’s reputation as an expert in the law. Few at this stage were suspicious of his motives.
Norham (1291–92)
The Scots nobles and clergy met Edward I at Norham, near the border, in May 1291. At Norham, Edward surprised the guardians by demanding that they accept him as their feudal overlord. This was a condition he demanded before making his judgment on who would be King of Scots. He had ordered an army to assemble, in order to intimidate the Scots and make sure that his judgement was accepted. Edward himself claimed that the army was there to keep the peace. The Scots had asked Edward to arbitrate (help); Edward believed he was there to judge the case.
However, the Scots replied that only their king could deal with such a request, dodging the issue of overlordship in the immediate term. Overall, Edward was now in the driving seat as the Scots needed his help to choose their king.
At some point during this period, Robert Bruce orchestrated the appeal of the seven earls, a letter written in the name of the Scottish earls stating their support for Robert Bruce’s claim to the throne. Most historians agree, however, that this letter was probably a piece of Bruce propaganda, and is unlikely to truly represent the views of the Scottish earls. Rather, it is Bruce’s response to the letter from Bishop Fraser to Edward I. Bishop Fraser was a supporter of John Balliol’s claim and the guardianship was dominated by the Comyn family.
The Great Cause
The task of choosing the new king has come to be known as the Great Cause. Of the 13 claimants (14 if you count Edward himself), three men had the best claim – John Balliol, John of Hastings and Robert Bruce. All three were descendants of the daughters of David, Earl of Huntingdon, a descendant of David I of Scotland. In order to ensure he would be overlord of Scotland, Edward demanded that all claimants accepted this before he would pass judgment on them. Again, as Edward viewed himself as judge in the case, his judgement would be binding if he established overlordship first. All agreed, as none wished to be left out of the competition to be king, with Balliol last to accept this demand. Both Bruce and Balliol held lands in England for which they already paid homage to the English king, which they would not have
Page 17 of 65
wanted to risk. Similar oaths followed from the Scottish guardians, nobles and clergy. Edward had arranged a blockade of Scotland if it proved necessary, to secure his goal of overlordship. He had also obtained possession of the Scottish castles to award to the successful claimant, and appointed English officials to work alongside the Scots.
Page 18 of 65
Each claimant in the Great Cause was allowed the opportunity to present their case. All of the evidence was heard and discussed by 104 auditors, who had to deal with questions of legality. Edward enlisted legal opinion from as far afield as Paris. He wanted to ensure that he set the correct precendent. During these proceedings, there was the question of whether, in the absence of a direct heir, Scotland should instead be divided into three between the leading claimants. Was Scotland a real kingdom which was indivisible? Hastings argued that Scotland was little more than a barony which could be divided. There was also the question of whether seniority of line was to be favoured over nearness of degree of relation. The court declared that seniority of line was favoured just before judgment was reached, and Bruce then switched to support Hastings and argued that Scotland should be divided. Some of the competitors, such as Floris V, Count of Holland, were able to hold up the slow proceedings still further by claiming to be searching for documents to prove that David, Earl of Huntingdon had given up the rights of inheritance.
Edward’s decision
Edward announced his decision on 17 November 1292, after 13 months of arguments and debate. In the end, it was decided that John Balliol had the better legal claim. This decision rested on the law of primogeniture, which had been reasonably well established in Scotland since the reign of David I. This law states that inheritance of title and property should pass to the first-born child and their descendants. Balliol was thus chosen to become King John of Scots. Edward’s decision has been seen by some as controversial. Notably, subsequent Scottish kings put forward the idea that Bruce had the better claim, and that Edward chose Balliol only because he thought he would be easier to manipulate. This propaganda of the Bruce faction may have some weight as Duncan has recently argued that Bruce’s claim had sway with the court in the later months, but that Edward took no notice. Largely, however, historical opinion recognises that Balliol had the better claim.
Page 19 of 65
Key figures
Alexander III (reigned 1249–1286)
King from the young age of seven, Alexander nevertheless is seen as an effective king. Alexander had been on good terms with England, firstly with Henry III, who allowed his eldest daughter to marry the Scottish king, and then with his brother-in-law Edward I. Alexander had sworn fealty to Edward for his English lands, but had steadfastly refused to accept Edward as overlord for his kingdom of Scotland.
Alexander III reigned over Scotland during a time of peace and prosperity. More land was turned over to agriculture, and monasteries and abbeys continued to grow and flourish. Trade with the continent brought much needed supplies and bolstered the economy. Alexander even managed to push the boundaries of Scotland further west, when he defeated the Norwegian king at the Battle of Largs (1263) and added all of the Western Isles to his domain.
With both his first wife and last remaining son dead, Alexander agreed to marry again. It was during a trip to visit his new wife, Yolande, that he was killed falling off his horse. This left only the three-year-old Margaret, Maid of Norway as the heir to the Scottish throne. The Tailize of 1284 secured the agreement of the Scottish nobles that she would inherit the throne.
Margaret Maid of Norway (reigned 1286–1290)
Margaret was the daughter of King Eric II of Norway and Margaret, daughter of Alexander III. She was born in 1283 and her mother died in childbirth. Margaret had been accepted as heir apparent by the Scottish nobility, while Alexander III still lived. However, it was hoped at the time that the king would father another son. After his death, however, Margaret’s father, the King of Norway, was anxious that his daughter would receive her birthright and become queen of Scots. She died on her way to Orkney in 1290; her remains were taken back to Bergen and buried alongside her mother.
Edward I, King of England (reigned 1272–1307)
Edward was a powerful and successful king, who had taken part in the ninth crusade, conquered Wales and incorporated it into the kingdom of England in 1284. Edward was a keen lawyer, and took a great deal of interest in the workings of the government. An able tactician and brave warrior, Edward was admired by his barons, but not always liked. His heavy-handed approach and constant interference in their business was quite often resented.
There is a lot of historical debate concerning Edward’s motives after the death of Alexander III. Did he, as some historians believe, see a chance to profit through Scotland’s misfortunes by exerting his claim of overlordship? Or, as
Page 20 of 65
other historians argue, was he simply looking to maintain a secure northern border during this period of troubles with France?
The Scottish clergy
The Scottish church was determined throughout this period to maintain its independence from the authority of the Archbishop of York. Scotland had no archbishop, but had secured the status of ‘special daughter, no one between’ from the Pope in 1174. This was further enforced by a papal bull in 1192 emphasising the freedom of the Scottish church from interference from York. Any threat to the independence of Scotland would have been a threat to the independence of the Scottish church. In part, this explains the almost fanatical support of the Scottish church throughout the war.
Bishop William Fraser
As Bishop of St Andrews, Fraser held an important position within the kingdom. He was a staunch supporter of the Community of the Realm, having served as guardian for the Maid of Norway. Fraser and Bishop Wishart of Glasgow were instrumental in getting the Parliament of Scone to accept Margaret as heir and queen. Fraser was keen to avoid civil war in Scotland, and when Margaret’s death was discovered he feared a coup d’état by Robert Bruce, Lord of Annandale. His decision to ask Edward for help has often been criticised by some historians. However, this is with the benefit of hindsight. He worked tirelessly in his defence of the independence of the church.
Robert Bruce, Lord of Annandale
Also known as ‘Robert the competitor’, the Lord of Annandale was the grandfather of the future King Robert I. An elderly man full of ambition, he must have realised that his claim was inferior to that of John Balliol. Some historians believe that his posturing and aggressive threats to make war before and after the death of Margaret show he suspected that his legal position was weak.
John Balliol (reigned 1292–1296)
John was a significant landholder in Scotland, England and France. His grandmother, Margaret, was the eldest daughter of David, Earl of Huntingdon, thus giving him a strong claim to the vacant throne. Some historians have put forward the idea that John was a weak man, and this was the reason that he was chosen by Edward to become King of Scots. It is widely accepted, however, that his claim was legally the strongest, something Edward, an expert in the law, would have understood.
John of Hastings
An English knight who had fought several times for Edward I in the Welsh wars, John was the grandson of Ada, the youngest daughter of David, Earl of
Page 21 of 65
Huntingdon. John had argued that Scotland should be split up into three, and each of the surviving descendants of Earl David given an equal share. There were precedents for this happening in feudal law, and it had applied to baronies before. However, Edward I agreed that Scotland was a kingdom in its own right and that this case should not apply.
Page 22 of 65
Historical debate
Was there a ‘Golden Age’ of Scotland?
For many historians the idea that Scotland enjoyed a ‘Golden Age’ of peace and prosperity during the reign of Alexander III is based on a strong argument:
Scotland’s trade and communications with the continent flourished. The Inverness shipyards built fine ships for the Count of St Po,
transporting troops on crusade. The wool trade through Berwick flourished, with both Flemish and
German cloth factories being established in Berwick. There was an extension of the kingdom thanks to the Battle of Largs in
1263, a personal victory for Alexander III who had now driven Norway out of the British Isles (with the exception of Orkney and Shetland).
There existed a close relationship with Edward I, but Alexander III was also able to defend his sovereignty at Westminster in 1278, stating: ‘No one has a right to homage for my kingdom of Scotland save God alone, and I hold it only of God’.
Simon Schama describes Scotland in Alexander’s reign as ‘a flourishing kingdom, with its ceremonial centre divided between Scone, the palace of royal inauguration, and Dunfermline Abbey, the necropolis of the house of Canmore. The prosperous maritime port cities of Scotland, from Aberdeen in the north to Berwick in the south, shipped hides and wool and housed the same mix of local artisans and foreign merchants and had established a place in the dynamic trading economy of the North Sea. ’
How important is the idea of the Community of the Realm?
One aspect of the period which has been the subject of a great deal of historical debate is the notion of the Community of the Realm. That the leading nobility and clergy were able to rally around during this period of crisis is well documented. The political Community of the Realm, therefore, refers to the barons, earls, and bishops who associated with the king and participated in the running of the country. The six guardians appointed for Margaret represented this community. Indeed, some historians believe that the six guardians were deliberately chosen to represent the different geographical regions of Scotland, with two earls, two lords/barons and two bishops to represent the different spheres of power. Robert Bruce and John Balliol were not chosen to be guardians, and that could say something about the tension at the time. Barrow suggests that the membership of the guardians was deliberately designed to represent these two factions. However other historians argue that the Bruce faction felt excluded during this period.
That the guardians managed to work together so effectively suggests that in 1286, and with the threat of civil war hanging over them, they were able to come together for what was deemed the good of the kingdom. That Bishops Fraser and Wishart had a strong influence in this cannot be denied. The two statesmanlike clerics probably steered the magnates of the kingdom around to
Page 23 of 65
their way of thinking. Nevertheless, the guardians were remarkably practical in their dealings with their own countrymen, as well as Edward I. Again, with the backing of the bishops, the guardians were able to agree at the Parliament of Scone to accept Margaret as queen. Even Robert Bruce accepted (though apparently with poor grace). It is a notable achievement for them to have held the kingdom together in the name of a three-year-old.
Geoffrey Barrow strongly believes in the existence of this Community of the Realm of Scotland. He states: ‘Of course there was such a community, even when a king was on the throne, but in normal times, with an adult and vigorous rulers, the community would fade into the background. ’ Fiona Watson agrees, stating that ‘Despite the reputation usually given to them, the Scottish nobility, while by no means entirely united (and what group of politicians are!), managed to maintain control of the situation’. It should, however, be noted that this concept of the Community of the Realm does not seem to have emerged before 1286 and meant different things at different times to different people. It is a different concept from modern day ones of nationhood and nationalism, but is representative of perhaps the birth of these ideas.
Why was the Treaty of Birgham so important to the Scots?
In essence the Guardians of Scotland may have been happy enough with the marriage proposal between young Edward and Margaret, but they were at least a little anxious about Edward I. The marriage would have removed the threat of civil war. However, the guardians felt they needed to be involved in drafting the treaty, rather than be sidelined by the negotiations between Margaret’s father, the King of Norway, and Edward I. Thus they were keen to see some safeguards installed in the treaty that would ensure the long-term survival of their ancient customs and rights. Parliament would not be held outside Scotland, nor would they be called to pay feudal dues to Edward I. It was therefore important to maintain the independence of Scotland.
Some historians argue that Edward’s guarantee of Scottish independence and the lack of mention of overlordship within the Treaty of Birgham demonstrate his good intentions towards Scotland in 1290. However, it is important to note that, although the issue of overlordship is not explicitly mentioned, Edward was careful to reserve his rights despite the various guarantees offered to the Scots. He may not, at this stage, have been interested in overlordship but he did not give up his right to return to this issue at a later date. Some others point out that Edward wanted, and indeed did, appoint his own representative in Scotland. Bishop Bek of Durham was sent north to be Edward’s lieutenant and the caretaker of the kingdom, while at the same time Edward absorbed the Isle of Man into his territory. However, it is a matter of debate as to whether there was anything to concern the Scots in Edward’s actions at this stage.
What were Edward’s intentions towards Scotland?
Edward’s intentions towards the Scots has led to much historical debate. Historians are somewhat contradictory about what Edward’s aspirations were
Page 24 of 65
at any specific time. It has been said that Edward was initially ambivalent about the fate of Scotland; he was after all in France when Alexander III died. His treatment of the Scots at Birgham would lend some credence to this argument. The situation with France was clearly a concern to Edward at this point. From this, some historians have put the case that Edward pursued the issue of overlordship perhaps in order to prevent the Scots from taking France’s side against the English. However, others, such as Fiona Watson, point out that England did not actually go to war with France until 1295. We know that Edward had written to all English monasteries asking them to search their records for any written reference or justification for England’s overlordship to Scotland, prior to the meeting at Norham. He also had his fleet on standby ready to blockade Scottish ports and was summoning levies from the northern counties to form an army. It was probably clear to the guardians that his attitudes towards Scotland had changed with the death of the Maid of Norway, and many historians agree that this tragic incident altered Edward’s intentions to his northern border. Perhaps the success of absorbing Wales into England’s sphere of influence created the belief that the same could be done with Scotland, and here was the perfect opportunity. Most historians agree that Edward, who was on friendly terms with Alexander III, saw this as his opportunity to take advantage of Scotland during its period of weakness. He was also the great-uncle of the Maid of Norway and so could expect to wield influence over her and, thereby, over Scotland. On her death, his method of achieving influence was also forced to change. Certainly, no King of Scots had previously been treated in such a way as Edward would treat King John.
Who had the rightful claim to Scotland?
The process of deciding on the next king following the death of the Maid of Norway was long and drawn-out, lasting over 15 months. Edward, now that overlordship was assured, wanted to see justice served and took the advice of experts to ensure that the correct precedent was set (perhaps with an eye to his own inheritance). The first question which had to be addressed was whether Scotland should remain as one kingdom, or whether it should be split between the leading claimants. John of Hastings argued for this, but the court decided that Scotland would remain intact.
Then there was the question of who had the best claim. With Alexander III’s line dead the court was forced to look at the earlier generation of the royal family, the offspring of William the Lion and his younger brother David, Earl of Huntingdon. Both Bruce and Balliol were genuine descendants of David, but crucially Bruce was the son of the middle daughter of Earl David, while Balliol, though a grandson, was descendant from the eldest daughter of Earl David. The law of primogeniture – the legal process where inheritance would pass down the eldest line – was becoming more accepted in Scotland but was by no means the guaranteed way in which the court would rule. Robert Bruce unsuccessfully argued that primogeniture had no meaning in this case because a kingdom was special and therefore ordinary customs did not apply. The court decided this was not true and his application was rejected. In
Page 25 of 65
desperation he then joined Hastings in his attempt to get the kingdom split into three and shared equally, but again he was unsuccessful.
Medieval chroniclers writing after the Wars took the view that Balliol was chosen because he was a weak man who could be pushed around by Edward, in contrast to the stonger character of Robert Bruce. However, their writings are almost certainly influenced by the context within which they were working, given that the kings during this period were descendants of Robert the Bruce. The views offered in these chronicles can be taken as propaganda for the Bruce family. Revisionist historians, therefore, tend to disagree with the opinion of the chroniclers. There is no evidence that Balliol was particularly weak; any king would have found it difficult to work in the conditions under which he struggled. Added to this is the fact that he had the better claim as primogeniture was becoming established as a custom in Scotland. The choice was nothing to do with character; it had everything to do with legitimacy. Moreover, Robert Bruce the competitor and his son the Earl of Carrick were the first to swear an oath of fealty to Edward.
John Balliol and Edward I
Overview
The inauguration of John Balliol in 1292, over whom Edward I had great influence, led to a great deal of unrest as Edward repeatedly humiliated the new King of Scotland. When Edward demanded that King John join him in his war with France in 1294, the Scots king took a stand by refusing to supply military service to Edward. Then, guided by the Council of Twelve, the Scots made a treaty with France: should England attack France, Scotland would in turn march on England.
Edward responded by invading Scotland. The battle at Dunbar was decisively won by the English. King John was forced to withdraw from the treaty with France. He was then stripped of his robes of kingship and publicly humiliated by Edward. Most of the Scottish nobles and a decent cross-section of Scots society attached their seals to the Ragman’s Roll as a symbol of their homage to Edward I.
Page 26 of 65
Events
King John’s inauguration
King John was officially inaugurated as King of Scots at Scone on 30 November, St Andrews Day, 1292. The ceremony was observed by all of the important people of the realm. In accordance with established customs he was enthroned upon the ancient Stone of Destiny.
However, John’s inauguration was significantly overshadowed by his formal oath of fealty before Edward I. No doubt John, like all claimants to the Scottish throne had hoped that the submission to Edward at Norham would be temporary, and certainly Edward had strongly hinted that at the time. However, the formal ceremony, at Edward’s parliament in Newcastle in 1292, suggested no such thing.
Alexander III had previously given an oath of fealty for his land in England; this was not an issue, and Edward himself had given an oath to the French king for his French holdings. The issue was, rather, John Balliol paying homage for Scotland and accepting Edward as his overlord. What was significant was the degree of interference to which King John would be subjected to by the English king.
If the implication was not clear from the outset, then it would soon become apparent that Edward took this matter very seriously. To him Scotland was a vassal kingdom, with a vassal king.
The new Scottish Government
Page 27 of 65
It was clear that Edward saw the administration of Scotland as not solely the responsibility of the King of Scots. On Edward’s insistence John was forced to accept an English man to be his new chancellor, perhaps to help set up an exchequer along the English lines. This man, Master Thomas of Hunsingore, advised John and set about changing elements of the traditional Scots customs of taxation and rendering of goods. As with the English system the office of treasurer was introduced, changing the title from chancellor as it had been since the time of David I. Edward ordered the wording of the Royal Seal of Scotland to be changed. All in all King John’s reign had begun firmly under the yoke of Edward I.
Edward I hears Scottish complaints
Edward continued his humiliation of King John by insisting that he would hear any complaints from John’s court. Thus, there were a number of dissatisfied claimants from Scottish courts wishing to have unfavourable verdicts from King John overturned by King Edward. Each case brought new humiliation for John, as he was forced to climb down. The first case, in 1292, was from a burgess from Berwick. When John complained, he tried to use the Treaty of Birgham to insist that Edward was overstepping his bounds. However, Edward publicly forced John to back down and issue letters proclaiming that the King of England was no longer bound to Birgham, or indeed any guarantees for Scottish independence. The most embarrassing case was when John was forced to appear in person to answer a complaint from a subject, McDuff. Edward would not allow King John to have a representative to speak on his behalf. English chroniclers talk about the Scots king’s humiliation and his return journey to Scotland to face his own nobles.
The war with France: 2 June 1294
Edward I’s proposed war with France in 1294 led to open conflict between Scotland and England. Edward and Philip IV, King of France, clashed over Gascony and Philip’s decision to confiscate Aquitaine from the English king. In June 1294, Edward ordered King John to head south and to bring with him 10 Scottish earls and 16 barons, with their knights. The Scots were to assemble at Portsmouth in September. This was a significant example of the new political landscape. While it was true that Malcolm IV had served with Henry II in France in 1159, no other Scottish king had ever served under English banners in such an obvious way and even then Malcolm had faced anger from his own earls in daring to do so. It all but sealed the client status the Scottish kingdom had found itself reduced to.
John and the guardians rebel: 1294–1295
Between June 1294 and July 1295 it would appear that John was effectively sidelined by his own nobility. There is a considerable amount of debate about this among historians, but we can say with some certainty that the Council of Twelve was appointed to take over the running of affairs from the king. Most of this council hailed from the Comyn side, and few if any were loyal to the Bruce faction. Four bishops, four earls and four barons made up the council,
Page 28 of 65
and they are credited with sending envoys to the French court in July 1295 asking for an alliance against King Edward. The alliance was eventually sealed on 23 February 1296 and ratified at Dunfermline by King John, the Comyn faction of nobles and many burgesses and bishops. Bruce and his faction were again absent.
Meanwhile Edward was unable to punish the Scots for their defiance until 1296. He was busy putting down a major rebellion in Wales led by Madog Llywelyn.
The Battle of Dunbar
Edward crossed the Tweed in early March 1296 in response to John’s refusal to provide military support and to attend court. His invasion was planned well in advance as news of the Scottish–French alliance would not reach him until July. The first obstacle was the walled town of Berwick. The defenders had fortified as best they could and they scorned Edward’s offers of surrender. The defenders grimly held on for three days, but when the English finally took the town, the defending townsfolk were slaughtered.
The Scottish army was waiting for Edward further north along the coast at Dunbar Castle. The wife of the Earl of Dunbar had handed over the keep to the Scots, while her husband had rushed to Berwick to sign up with the English king. Only one third of the English army had advanced to lay siege to the keep. Led by Warenne, the Earl of Surrey, they prepared to meet the Scots forces in a head-on encounter. The Scots army lacked in any real quality or experience. Surrey’s troops were all veterans and well equipped. The Scots were neither. The Scottish commanders mistook Surrey’s repositioning of his troops as a retreat, and charged, leaving the relative safety of the hill they had been dominating. Out of formation and charging the disciplined English ranks, the Scots were easy prey to the charging English knights and men at arms. The battle was a complete disaster for the Scots. Many Scots died, and over 130 Scottish nobles were captured.
The subjugation of Scotland
Edward had effectively destroyed the Scots resistance with one battle. When word of the scale of the disaster spread, Scots refused to contemplate fighting against Edward and began surrendering.
Roxburgh surrendered after a few days of sporadic fighting. Jedburgh and Edinburgh castles held off Edward’s troops for a little
longer, but when his powerful new siege engines arrived the castles quickly surrendered, not wishing to withstand the bombardment.
Stirling did not even put up a fight. The defenders of the castle left the keys to the castle with the caretakers as they fled the approaching English.
King John and the Comyn lords retreated to the north east, and there they contemplated surrender.
Page 29 of 65
Only on the west coast did Alexander, head of the powerful MacDougall clan, put up any kind of resistance.
Ragman’s Roll
By late August almost 1600 leading Scottish nobles and burgesses swore a personal oath to King Edward. This was collectively known as the ‘Ragman’s Roll’. William Wallace never attached a seal to the Roll, giving way to the argument that he was a patriot fighting for King John. However, to some historians, the failure of Wallace’s seal to appear on the Roll could simply be due to the fact that he wasn’t seen as important enough to be asked to do homage to the king.
Toom Tabard
King John officially offered his surrender at Kincardine Castle on 2 July by sending a letter to the English king begging for his forgiveness and blaming his actions on poor advice from his nobles. The surrender was accepted in a humiliating ceremony on the 10 July. John was forced to renounce his treaty with France, apologise to Edward, and was eventually stripped of his throne, his royal robes stripped off his body and thrown to the ground. John would subsequently be known as Toom Tabard or ‘empty coat’.
During this invasion, King Edward also removed other items from Scotland. He took government papers, the Stone of Destiny and holy relics.
Key figures
John, King of Scots (reigned 1292–1296)
King John’s reign was short, and he didn’t have the time to effectively stamp his authority on Scotland. He is remembered chiefly as ‘Toom Tabard’ or empty coat, the humiliated Scottish king who had his kingly garments ripped from him by Edward I. King’s John’s reputation was forever tarnished by this one event. Future kings of Scots would refrain from naming their children John because it was considered unlucky. When Robert III came to power in 1371 he changed his name from John to Robert, as no king should be called John, but Robert was a more fitting name.
However John’s reputation was perhaps tarnished on purpose. Chroniclers like John Barbour, writing at the time of Robert II, were attempting to justify the usurpation of the throne by Robert Bruce’s family and eventually the accession
Page 30 of 65
of the Stewart family in 1371. Chroniclers were therefore encouraged to write a somewhat patriotic and damning history of King John’s reign and the glorious rebellion by Robert Bruce.
However, it would be wrong to think that, because of the external pressure, John was a bad king or an incompetent one. Nor would it be fair to simply judge him as a coward or a failure. It is difficult to see how anyone could have managed to do well under the difficult conditions under which John found himself. Scotland had not had a king in charge since 1286. The Community of the Realm had found itself capable of running its own affairs since then. It was always going to be difficult for anyone to establish their authority after that length of time. Similarly, anyone would have had the same problems with Edward I. A suggestion has been put forward that Robert Bruce was not chosen as King of Scots by Edward because he was a strong-willed man who would have stood up to Edward. The idea that John Balliol would not have stood up to Edward has no basis in fact. Indeed Bruce acknowledged Edward as his overlord far more quickly than Balliol ever did.
The Earl of Surrey
John de Warenne, the Earl of Surrey, was a close friend of Edward, having fought with him during the wars in Wales, and having accompanied him to Spain to collect his bride. He was in charge of the English vanguard that fought the Scots at the Battle of Dunbar. His quick thinking and highly manoeuverable force outwitted the Scots and won a tremendous battle. His reward was to be named ‘warden of the kingdom and land of Scotland’, Edward’s chief lieutenant in the north. However, Warenne was tiring of the life of constant campaigning and often complained about his health. He did not stay long in Scotland; he blamed the inclement weather for his poor condition and returned to his estates in England.
He was slow to deal with the rebellions in 1297, and allowed his second-in-command, the Treasurer of Scotland, Hugh Cressingham much leeway in handling the affairs of the kingdom. Eventually he was forced to return to Scotland because of Wallace and Murray’s rebellion. As a result of his poor leadership and bad choices he lost the Battle of Stirling Bridge, and was forced to retreat to Berwick in 1297. Despite this it would seem that Edward continued to show him favour. He led the recapture of Roxburgh and Berwick in 1298 and was one of the field commanders at the Battle of Falkirk.
Historical debate
The significance of King John’s oath to Edward
The oath of homage between the King of Scots and Edward I of England changed the very nature of Scottish and English politics. The consequences of John’s oath could not have been more profound. It not only reduced Scotland to a client status, but also set the two kingdoms on the inevitable path towards war.
Page 31 of 65
For Edward the oath was seen by some as the climax of several years of hard work to secure his position in the north of Britain. Certainly some chroniclers suggest this, but there is no evidence to back up this assertion completely.
Yet when we look at the aggressive behaviour of Edward before, during and after the Great Cause, it is hard to see what else Edward had on his mind.
King John’s oath to Edward was officially held at Norham a few weeks after his inauguration at Scone. Edward did not attend the inauguration, but he made sure that he travelled back north to Norham to hear John’s oath. The wording of the oath chosen for John by Edward spelled out the new status between Scotland and England. Edward had given the throne to King John and John was beholden to Edward for all the lands of Scotland. Not since William the Lion in 1174 had a Scottish king submitted so thoroughly. Now Edward could claim complete control over Scotland. He could claim the rights to interfere as he was legally able to in any of his lands in England. In this respect the oath given by John proved to be extremely significant.
Did the nobles sideline King John?
Traditionally it has been assumed that the Council of Twelve had effectively taken leadership of Scotland away from King John. Historians such as Barrow have held firmly to this belief. Barrow states: ‘…their mistrust of Balliol had pushed them to the point of a sober constitutional reform…the government was taken out of Balliol’s hands’ (Barrow, G.W.S; Robert Bruce and the Community of the Realm of Scotland; Edinburgh University Press, 1993).
However, there is another possibility: King John may not have been sidelined by the nobility of his realm. In fact the Scottish nobles had a long history of support and loyalty to their monarch. Could this be just another example of this? It is possible that at the Stirling parliament it was agreed by the nobility, the church and the king that all should be done to resist Edward’s demands for military service. As a show of support the nobility and church threw themselves into the ring with their king. By stepping forward, not only did they offer their support to their king, but they also put their own necks on the line along with his.
Why was Scotland so easily subjugated in 1296?
The Battle of Dunbar, on 27 April 1296, marked the beginning of the subjugation of King John’s Scotland. On the face of it was an easy victory by Warenne, Earl of Surrey, against the common army of Scotland. The victory was a psychological defeat of the entire kingdom, and its leadership.
Warenne’s forces at Dunbar were not overwhelming. However, it is to the leadership of the Scots forces that we must look for reasons for the failure of the Scots at Dunbar and the rest of the 1296 campaign. Put simply, they were found wanting. The leaders of the army at Dunbar mistook a simple reorganisation of the English forces as a retreat. They decided to abandon the
Page 32 of 65
strong position overlooking the English and break formation, charging the English knights as they were preparing to charge.
The majority of the captured Scots taken after the battle were nobles, many of them the leaders of the Community of the Realm who had supported King John against Edward. They were the backbone of the resistance against England. With them in captivity the pressure and determination to stand against Edward were also gone.
King John appeared to be unable or, some say, unwilling to take personal responsibility for the kingdom to lead the resistance after Dunbar. His Comyn-led factions were similarly weak in their leadership, retreating to their familial homes in the north east. The major castles in the south fell quickly. Although Roxburgh and Edinburgh put up something of a fight, they did not withstand Edward’s siege engines for long. Thus, without strong leadership to stiffen the morale of the Scots after the initial defeat, resistance was going to crumble quickly.
It would appear that Edward was very well prepared for his 1296 invasion. He could and probably would have invaded a year earlier, had it not been for the Welsh uprising. It is this that has led to historians suggesting that he was already preparing to invade Scotland before their defiance over troops serving in France. Indeed, historians also speculate that Edward may have already have been aware of the treaty between the Scots and French. The Scots, on the other hand, were nowhere near ready for a war with England. The defences of Berwick had to be hastily shored up, and many of the important nobles of the Bruce faction chose to remain loyal to Edward.
Added to this, the lack of experience the Scots actually had in fighting a war gave Edward’s men a considerable advantage. The common army of Scotland was summoned by their feudal lords; they had no formal military training, other than a yearly ‘wappenshaw’, or weapon showing. The chain of command was somewhat blurred along family, clan and faction lines. The last time the Scots had summoned such a host had been over 30 years earlier for the Battle of Largs in 1263.
Edward’s men on the other hand were stiffened by the presence of veterans of the Welsh wars, they had experience fighting and fighting alongside each other.
Page 33 of 65
Primary sources
1. From the chronicle of Walter Bower, the Scotichronicon
Then after the capture of the town of Berwick by the English and the piteous slaughter of the Scots from Fife became known, the Scots who were sent by King John to help the town of Berwick fought in the same year on 27th April with the English at Dunbar. Where Patrick de Graham and many nobles fell wounded. And very many other knights and barons, on fleeing to the castle of Dunbar in the hope of saving their lives, were received there with ready welcome. But the custodian of the castle in question, Richard Siward by name, handed them all, to the number of seventy knights, besides the Earl of Ross and the Earl of Menteith, to the King of England, like sheep offered for slaughter. Without pity, he handed them over to suffer immediately various kinds of death and hardship.
2. The Ragman’s Roll
The Ragman’s Roll is the name given to the official document showing the oath of fealty to Edward I after the 1296 campaign. The name usually refers to the ragged strips that the seals of the nobles and other important Scots would have been attached to. There are many strips that still bear the seals, but most have long since vanished. There is another theory that suggests the name is an English corruption of Ragimunde: a papal envoy who collected a copy for the Pope of the time.
There are over 200 seals on the roll: most are nobles and their important followers, although there are also several merchants, burgesses and crown tenants. It has been suggested that William Wallace refused to attach his seal to the roll, but there is no evidence for this. Historians such as Fiona Watson argue that he was simply not important enough for his seal to have been sought.
Page 34 of 65
William Wallace and Scottish resistance
Overview
Following the capitulation of Scotland in 1296, Edward was keen to maintain his authority, and any prominent Scot whose seal failed to appear on the ‘Ragman’s Roll’ was declared an outlaw and pursued by authorities. However, revolts against Edward I emerged within months. The first recorded instances of these revolts took place in the south west, led by William Wallace, and in the north-east of Scotland, led by Andrew Murray. As Barrow argues, the conquest of 1296 had likely resulted in only a handful of leading Scots resigning themselves to a permanent English occupation, given how easy and superficial the campaign had been (Robert the Bruce and the Community of the Realm of Scotland, Barrow, p 80).
As Barrow also notes, William Wallace is the national figure whom we know least about. He was outlawed following the murder of the Sheriff of Lanark, Heselrig. Many men then joined Wallace in rebellion against English domination. To the north, Sir Andrew Murray was staging a similar rebellion, slowly pushing the English out of the Highlands altogether. In September of that same year, Wallace and Murray led the Scots to a victory at the Battle of Stirling Bridge. Following this impressive victory, Wallace and Murray were named ‘Guardians of Scotland’. Their victory was short-lived, however. Andrew Murray died shortly after the battle of the wounds he received. The following year King Edward I once again marched on Scotland, the two armies meeting at Falkirk in July with decisive consequences in favour of the English. Scottish resistance, however, continued under Robert Bruce, John Comyn and the church, and only really began to suffer in 1302–1305. During this period, Edward asserted his power and seemed to secure his influence over Scotland.
After the disastrous defeat at Falkirk, Wallace resigned as Guardian of Scotland. He continued to resist until his capture near Glasgow on 5 August 1305 by Sir John Menteith, a Scottish knight, loyal to Edward. He was brought before Edward in Westminster Hall on 23 August 1305, where he was condemned for treason. Immediately following the trial, Wallace was stripped and dragged by horses through the streets, after which he was hanged, drawn and quartered, and his dismembered body parts were sent to five different cities for display as a reminder of Edward’s wrath.
Page 35 of 65
Events
The murder of the Sheriff of Lanark
After the capitulation of the Scots in 1296, King Edward I may have thought that the Scottish question had been answered. However, just a few months later there began a series of revolts against his rule. The most famous of these was led by William Wallace.
William Wallace is not known to have been involved in the wars before 1297. It is crucial to acknowledge that much of the history of Wallace comes from the work of Blind Harry: a very dubious historical source. Blind Harry wrote a poem on Wallace’s life which contains many factual inaccuracies and incorrect details. It cannot be trusted as an accurate source, given the date when the poem was written (in the 1470s, long after Wallace’s activities) and it offers a mythologised account of Wallace’s actions and background.
Wallace’s revolt began in May 1297. English chronicles from the time suggest that Wallace was encouraged in his actions by Sir William Douglas, Bishop Wishart and James the Stewart. The Lanercost chronicle claimed that they did not want to act openly themselves and so encouraged Wallace in their place. John of Fordun wrote that Wallace killed the English Sheriff of Lanark and then people who were opposed to the English flocked to him. The murder of the Sheriff of Lanark, William Heselrig, made Wallace an outlawed figure. The English chroniclers wrote that this incident sparked off a larger rebellion in the south west of Scotland.
Wallace was joined by Sir William Douglas and led his men in a devastating raid across Dumfrieshire, capturing castles and killing Edward’s supporters, before turning north to attack the English justiciar, William Ormesby, at Scone, winning many riches. It was not long before the nobles of the south west launched their own rebellion in their lands, including Bishop Wishart of Glasgow, James the Stewart and Robert Bruce, the future king. Clearly, Wishart and James the Stewart were notable figures to be involved in this rebellion given that they were the last two surviving guardians of Margaret, Maid of Norway who remained in Scotland. This rebellion did not last long, however, and the nobles eventually surrendered at Irvine on 7 July 1297. Wallace, on the other hand, had no intention of surrendering and he used the distraction of the nobles’ lengthy surrender negotiations at Irvine to gather more men to his cause. In the July of 1297, Hugh de Cressingham, Edward’s treasurer in Scotland, wrote to Edward expressing his concern that Wallace had gathered a large force in Selkirk forest and that no action had yet been
Page 36 of 65
taken to deal with him (letter from Hugh de Cressingham to Edward I, 23 July 1297).
The rebellion in the North
While Wallace was terrorising the English garrisons in the south, a second significant rebellion had began in the north. Sir Andrew Murray had been fighting alongside his father at the Battle of Dunbar, and had been captured at the end and taken to England as a prisoner. However, he managed to escape and return to his father’s lands around Inverness, undiscovered. There he found that many of the castles had English garrisons occupying them, including his father’s castle. Murray raised his family standard in his own lands, and soon found himself with a strong following. He was able to recapture many castles, including Inverness, Urquhart, Nairn and Banff. By July 1297 he had driven the English out of Scotland north of the Tay. By August he had moved south to threaten Angus and towns of Dundee and Perth. It was there that he learned of Wallace’s rebellion and the two met for the first time. By now the news of the nobles’ surrender at Irvine had reached both men, and soon they would call themselves the Commanders of the Army of Scotland, vowing to carry on the fight in the name of King John.
The Battle of Stirling Bridge, 11 September 1297
The English army was led by Edward’s Lieutenant of Scotland, Warenne, the Earl of Surrey and his aide, Hugh Cressingham, the Treasurer of Scotland. The Earl of Surrey had been responsible for the crushing defeat of the Scots at Dunbar. Hugh Cressingham was no military commander. In fact he had already sent some of the English soldiers home, in order to save paying their wages. Both men were supremely confident that they could defeat the Scots, and had no fear of Wallace or Murray.
At sunrise on the morning of the battle, the English army began crossing the narrow Bridge of Stirling. It was only wide enough for a few men to cross at once. However, the Earl of Surrey had slept in and the men were ordered back across the bridge to await his arrival.
When Surrey eventually woke he gave the order for the army to cross again, but when the Scottish Earl of Lennox arrived with messages from William Wallace he again recalled his men back across the river. In fact, the English could have crossed at the ford a few miles upstream. Both Surrey and Cressingham felt that this was unnecessary and instead decided to use the bridge to cross.
Meanwhile, William Wallace and Andrew Murray had spent the entire morning on the top of the Abbey Craig watching the comings and goings of the English troops. Thus when they began to cross for a third time, the Scottish commanders were quite sure as to how the English forces were going to manoeuvre for the coming battle. When roughly one-third of the English troops had crossed they ordered their spearmen, walking close together in a formation called a schiltron, to charge the English .
Page 37 of 65
As the English continued crossing, the Scots charged. They quickly managed to cut them off from the rest of the English army on the other side of the bridge. Unable to retreat, some of the English tried to swim the river, but they drowned. Most of the English on the Scots side of the river were wiped out, including Hugh Cressingham, a man who was so hated in Scotland that his body was reportedly skinned and parts of him made into souvenirs.
The Earl of Surrey immediately ordered a retreat, and he led the rest of his surviving men back to Berwick.
Wallace as Guardian of Scotland
After the stunning victory at Stirling Bridge, Wallace and Murray were made joint Guardians of Scotland by the nobility. The nobility may have been using the commanders of Scotland’s army to fight for independence without putting themselves at risk, or perhaps were simply frightened of them and their army. Whatever the reason, Wallace and Murray were now effectively in control of the Scottish government.
Murray’s actual involvement in the running of the kingdom must have been slight as he died weeks after the Battle of Stirling Bridge, presumably of the wounds that he suffered at the battle. However, we do know that this new administration was seen as legitimate. Wallace and Murray were ruling in the name of the absent king, John.
Wallace continued the war with a devastating raid into northern England. Few documents survive that give us some insight into the personal rule of Wallace in 1297–8. The most important is a letter written in October 1297 and issued in the names of Murray and Wallace. It was sent to the merchants of Lubeck and Hamburg, informing them that Scotland was no longer under the dominance of England and was now open for business. This shows Wallace’s administration of the kingdom to be self-assured and confident of its position in the war.
The Battle of Falkirk
By July 1298 Edward was ready to march into Scotland again. Wallace had at first not intended to meet the English in battle, and indeed it would appear he outmanoeuvered Edward. Instead of fighting him he sent most of his men to attack Carlisle. However, by 22 July Edward had succeeded in confronting Wallace on the field of battle.
Wallace placed his men in three circular schiltrons facing the enemy. His archers were positioned in between the schiltrons to protect them from English archers, and his cavalry were on each flank, to protect his archers from being swept away by an English charge. Wallace’s men, although outnumbered, held the defensive position: they were dug in and protected by stakes driven into the ground, and a boggy morass in front of them. So what went wrong?
Page 38 of 65
The English cavalry attacked from both flanks at the same time. The Scots cavalry were unable to stand against the superior numbers and fled. This has led to speculation that the cavlary may have been treacherous or, as Fiona Watson suggests, the nobles may have fled so quickly in order to be able to fight at a later date. The English knights then attacked the schiltrons but were unable to penetrate the thick wall of Scots spears. However, the Scots archers didn’t have any protection and were quickly killed or scattered.
The English knights withdrew a little. With no archers of their own to counter the English longbowmen, the schiltrons were forced to weather a barrage of missile fire. As the numbers of dead and dying Scots increased, the English knights charged again. This time there were too many gaps in the spear wall and the Scots were crushed. Thousands of Scots died, but Wallace managed to flee north into the woods with most of his commanders. However, his reputation was damaged and Wallace resigned as Guardian.
Continuing Scottish resistance
With the resignation of William Wallace after the Battle of Falkirk, Scottish resistance to Edward I continued under the Guardians of Scotland. John Comyn and Robert Bruce assumed joint leadership, although they had no particular love for each other.
In 1299, a Scottish delegation successfully lobbied Pope Boniface VIII to take their side against Edward I and secure the release of King John to papal authority. Papal support was not consistent for the duration of the conflict, but pressure at this time came jointly from the Scots and their allies the French. There had been more or less permanent lobbying of the Pope since 1295 by the Scots. The Pope issued a papal bull condemning Edward’s conduct against the Scots.
The Scots continued to have other successes during this period. The guardians were the de facto government, issuing orders in the name of King John. The Scots attacked English garrisons and burned fortifications. They took control of the north of Scotland and made the English occupiers feel under threat throughout the country. In 1299, Stirling Castle fell to the Scots. Wallace himself went to Europe to lobby on behalf of the Scottish cause. Edward I was largely pre-occupied with his affairs in France at this time.
Robert Bruce was not so keen to see King John return to Scotland. John’s return would surely see the end of Robert’s hopes of acquiring the crown. He resigned his guardianship in 1300, switching sides to join Edward in 1302. The reason for this may be that John Balliol had been released to French custody and there was hope amongst the Scots that a restoration may be possible, and that Balliol could travel to Scotland with a French army.
Edward’s military campaigns against the Scots continued in 1300, when he captured Caerlaverock Castle, using a powerful siege engine. This castle was well defended and Edward himself attended the siege because it would not
Page 39 of 65
surrender. Edward then defeated a small Scottish army on the River Cree. He followed this up with further raids in 1301 and 1302. However, John Comyn and the new guardian, John Soules, refused to give battle to the English king, retiring the army north, until the English were forced to retreat for the winter. The only pitched battle in 1303 was actually a victory for Comyn. The Battle of Roslin (May 1303) saw an English force wiped out during a night raid. The guardians continued to resist as best as they could, joined again by William Wallace.
By 1303, however, the Scots’ position had worsened. The French and English agreed a treaty in May 1303 which excluded the Scots, following Philip’s defeat in 1302. This meant the loss of the crucial support of the French king. The Scots also lost the support of the Pope, who wrote blaming the Scottish bishops for the continuing the war in August 1302. This was as a result of a quarrel between the Pope and King Philip of France, which led the Pope to favour Edward. Edward was now free to concentrate fully on the Scots.
Edward’s final invasion in 1303–04 saw the English forces cross the Forth for the first time and take the war into the heart of the Comyn lands. Edward wintered in Fife, to maintain the pressure on the Scots. The garrison of Stirling finally surrendered in July 1304, after a three-month siege. By then Comyn and the other leaders, apart from Wallace and Soules, had already accepted the inevitable and agreed terms from Edward. With the failure of the French initiative it appeared now that King John would not return. Comyn surrendered in February 1304, along with the council. Edward promised to respect the laws and customs of Scotland. Edward restored lands to those who surrendered and gave Scots positions in the government. The main change was that Scotland was no longer to be a kingdom, but was pointedly referred to as the land of Scotland.
William Wallace was singled out. He was not included in the peace terms, and he was not allowed to surrender. He went on the run, continuing the fight against the English, but was eventually betrayed by Sir John Menteith in 1305.
Key figures
William Wallace
William Wallace was the famous patriotic leader of Scotland during the first phase of the Wars of Independence. The subject of an epic poem, a famous, if somewhat misleading film and countless books, his name has become synonymous with the Scottish wars. However, we actually know very little about him and his motivations.
Most of what we know about Wallace’s origins comes from a poem written by Blind Harry. Most historians agree that this epic prose is not a historical document. It exaggerates much about his life, and many of the passages can be proven to be inaccurate. Thus, very little can be shown to be true and the poem has served to create the myth of William Wallace rather than reveal the reality of the man or his involvement in the Wars of Independence. It is
Page 40 of 65
important to remember that Blind Harry was writing in the 1470s with the purpose of creating a mythologised view of Wallace as James III sought peace with England, and yet strong anti-English sentiment remained amongst the majority of Scots who were, therefore, unhappy with this policy. The film Braveheart is based on Blind Harry’s poem, rather than real life.
From the contemporary chronicles, the Scotichronicon, written by Walter Bower, around the end of the fourteenth century describes Wallace as ‘a spirited fighting man’. Similarily, John of Fordun describes Wallace as ‘wondrously brave and bold’. In contrast to this, the English chroniclers highlight that Wallace was an outlaw. Walter of Guisborough describes him as a ‘public robber’, while the Lanercost Chronicle names him, ‘a certain, bloody man’.
More recently, Wallace’s father’s seal was found at the Mitchell Library in 1999. This has pointed to Wallace’s family originating in Ayrshire, and his father’s name being Alan, a crown tenant of Ayrshire whose seal was attached to the Ragman’s Roll. This has given some more concrete evidence on the origins of Wallace and has helped to end the previous speculation and disagreements amongst historians. The seal also features a longbow, suggesting that this was the way in which Wallace made his living as a younger son of a man of middling status (‘A report into the association of Sir William Wallace with Ayrshire’, Watson, F., March 1999). Evidence for further information on Wallace’s background is still lacking.
Letter by Andrew Murray and William Wallace
This letter, often referred to as the Lübeck letter, was issued by Andrew Murray and William Wallace.
The letter was sent in 1297, to advise European trade partners that Scottish ports were open for trade, as Scotland had been freed from English control. This letter is important in that it shows the two men effectively acting as Scotland’s rulers and also because it asserts that they are acting on behalf of King John, the rightful king.
Page 41 of 65
Andrew Murray
Young Andrew Murray was the son of the respected Andrew de Moray, justiciar of Northern Scotland. Both Andrew and his father had fought at the Battle of Dunbar, where they were captured along with the majority of the nobility on that fateful day. Young Andrew was taken to Chester castle to be imprisoned. However, he managed to escape and by May 1297 had returned to his familial lands and raised a rebellion that culminated in the removal of all English Garrisons north of the River Tay.
Hugh Cressingham had ordered the nobles of the north east, notably the Earl of Buchan and other leading Comyns, to hunt down Andrew and his followers. This, he claimed, would prove their loyalty to Edward. While Buchan took his men and chased Andrew for a while, his efforts were somewhat lacklustre. By August the young commander had marched to Dundee, where he joined forces with Wallace in the siege of the town.
Andrew Murray was wounded at Stirling Bridge, and is said to have died soon afterwards due to those same wounds. However, after the battle he was made joint guardian along with Wallace, and was referred to as joint commander of the army of Scotland. His role in the early part of the rebellion is often overlooked. A school of thought among historians credits Murray with the success of Stirling Bridge. He was, after all, a trained knight, when Wallace was at best a guerrilla leader, at worst the head of a band of outlaws. Those same historians point out that without Murray, Wallace’s only other battle, Falkirk, ended in disaster.
This argument is probably oversimplifying the relationship between Murray and Wallace. However, Andrew Murray’s contributions to the early rebellions were almost certainly a significant factor. Without the benefit of an epic poem his reputation has been somewhat overshadowed by Wallace.
Hugh Cressingham
After Edward’s successful annexation of Scotland in 1296, Hugh Cressingham was named Treasurer of Scotland. The Earl of Surrey had been named Edward’s Lieutenant of Scotland. Hugh Cressingham was in charge of the finances of the new administration in the kingdom. In reality, due to the lack of support from the Earl of Surrey, who had returned to England, Hugh was left with the day-to-day running of the whole kingdom.
As a result he was not a very popular individual. His primary goal of collecting taxes from Edward’s new subjects was hampered by the fact that he was considered to be a very rude and arrogant man. His casual disregard of the Scots and their laws and customs turned many against him.
Cressingham was both rich and lazy, but in the Welsh wars he had proven that he was a reasonably able soldier. Nevertheless, his performance at the Battle of Stirling Bridge left a lot to be desired. He was more interested in keeping costs down than in defeating the Scots. Inevitably his poor advice and cost-
Page 42 of 65
cutting measures contributed to the English defeat. After the battle, several chronicles claim that his skin was stripped from his body so it could be made into souvenirs.
Bishop Wishart
Bishop Robert Wishart of Glasgow was a central figure during the Wars of Independence. He was one of the six guardians appointed following the death of Alexander III in 1286. Wishart then joined the rebellion in 1297, following Edward’s invasion. As a leading figure within the Scottish church, Scottish independence and the independence of the Scottish church from the English church were inextricably linked. For this reason, the church remained heavily involved in the Wars of Independence for the duration of the conflict. Bishop Wishart was condemned in the Lanercost Chronicle for supporting Wallace’s rebellion: ‘Robert Wishart, Bishop of Glasgow, ever foremost in treason’. Along with Robert Bruce, the future king, and James the Stewart, he led a rebellion in south-west Scotland which ended with the surrender of the nobles at Irvine. It has been suggested that this rebellion was possibly designed to give Wallace time and space to launch his campaign. Wishart was also involved in military campaigns, such as the capture of Cupar Castle in 1306. Bishop Wishart’s support was crucial to Robert the Bruce following the murder of Comyn. Bruce went to Glasgow and met Bishop Wishart, who absolved him, and then accompanied him to Scone for the coronation. He supplied the robes for Bruce’s coronation in 1306, along with timber for siege engines in preparation for battle. Wishart was captured in 1306 following the Battle of Methven Woods. He was imprisoned and was only released after the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314, dying in 1316.
Page 43 of 65
Historical debate
Stirling Bridge
Who was responsible for the Scottish victory, Wallace or Murray?
In recent years, a debate has arisen as to who was responsible for the victory at Stirling Bridge. Traditionally, Wallace has been credited with leading the Scots against Surrey’s forces. Blind Harry’s epic poem and films such as Braveheart have reinforced this popular myth. However, the majority of these sources ignore Andrew Murray’s involvement. Surviving documents from the time clearly show him as joint commander of the army of Scotland. Has his contribution been overlooked, sidelined by the more famous William Wallace?
Certainly that is the argument of some revisionist historians. They have several arguments to suggest that it was Murray and not Wallace who was responsible for the Scots victory at Stirling Bridge.
If we believe that William Wallace was not of noble blood then where did he learn how to lead a body of fighting men? The skills necessary would be more likely to be found in Murray, who had been trained as a knight from an early age. His experience included his participation at the Battle of Dunbar and driving out the English garrisons in the north east.
After the death of Murray, Wallace’s only other major conflict, the Battle of Falkirk, was a disaster, therefore it was more likely that Murray’s involvement led to the victory at Stirling.
Of course this theory is simplistic. Other historians offer a different interpretation:
Wallace did not simply arrive on the scene in 1297 without a past. It is possible that he learned the necessary skills to lead a military campaign. If we believe that Wallace was an outlaw, perhaps leading a band of men in the Selkirk Forest, then his experience leading this group may have helped him develop the necessary skills to be a competent guerrilla leader.
Murray may well have had more formal training in the military arts. However, his only experience in a large battle was Dunbar. The Scots leadership did not perform well on that day, and their tactics were woefully inadequate. Murray, while not responsible for those decisions, was somewhat tainted by that defeat.
Page 44 of 65
The idea that Murray was the deciding factor in the Scots victory ignores other important issues, particularly the leadership of the English armies at both Stirling and Falkirk. Cressingham and Surrey’s steadfast refusal to listen to sound tactical advice doomed the English at Stirling. They revealed their intentions to the Scots not once but three times. It did not take a genius to work out how they would deploy in the future. Similarly, Wallace’s defeat at Falkirk was a more closely fought affair than is generally believed.
It is true that Andrew Murray’s contributions at Stirling and before have generally been overlooked. However, it is not clear as to whether he was more responsible than William Wallace for the Scottish victory.
Why did the nobles allow Wallace to rule as guardian?
If William Wallace was the son of a minor knight or a commoner outlaw lurking in the forests of central Scotland, there is debate as to why the combined nobility of Scotland accepted him as the sole guardian after the death of Murray. This is especially important when the issue of the vacant throne of Scotland was still very much a problem. Certainly in the past the threat of civil war had been such a concern that the Community of the Realm had elected to follow a young girl rather than face a bitter power struggle. It may be the same here; the nobles were willing to follow Wallace rather than fight among themselves as to who would succeed King John. Of course, many of the Scottish nobles hoped for the return of King John.
The fact that Wallace did not try to claim any authority for himself made it easier for the nobility to accept his rule. All of his announcements and letters clearly show that he was ruling in the name of King John. It was from the legitimate authority of the kingdom that he claimed his power. Thus the illusion could be maintained that the Scottish government continued as before.
There is also a more practical suggestion as to why the nobles decided to allow Wallace to lead. They all had more to lose than he did. He could become a convenient scapegoat should the Scottish cause prove to be a failure. This idea that the nobles used Wallace because they were too afraid to stand up for themselves is not as popular as it once was. After the Battle of Falkirk and Wallace’s resignation, the nobles were not unwilling to take up the leadership of the cause. Both Robert Bruce and John Comyn became joint guardians and took the field against Edward. It seems unlikely that the noble community would have been less willing to do so after the victory of Stirling Bridge.
That leads to what is often considered the least likely suggestion, that the nobles were both impressed and awed by what Wallace had accomplished. In Wallace they saw a warlord worthy of matching the ferocity of Edward I. Perhaps the simplest answer is the best: they allowed Wallace to become guardian because they believed he could deliver results.
What effect did Wallace’s execution have on Scotland?
Page 45 of 65
When compared to the treatment of the other Scots that had fought against Edward, Wallace’s fate at the hands of the English court was somewhat extreme. The harshness of both Wallace’s trial and his sentence has prompted some historians, such as Fiona Watson, to accuse the English king of being both rash and vindictive. However, what is important was the reaction to this violent execution by the Scottish population.
It is often assumed that there was a great deal of unrest in Scotland at the method of Wallace’s execution and that his death was to inspire Robert Bruce five months later to begin his own rebellion and bid for the throne. However, this is not necessarily true. Bruce’s rebellion was sparked by the murder of Comyn, not a planned act, but a moment of madness. There is no real evidence that Bruce was ‘inspired’ by Wallace in any way. Indeed, Bruce was quick to accept Wallace’s betrayer, Menteith, into his fold. Menteith’s seal was attached to the Declaration of Arbroath, and he was seen as one of King Robert’s most loyal men.
Nothing is known of contemporary reactions to Wallace’s execution. His body was quartered, and parts sent to Newcastle, Perth, Berwick and Stirling (or Aberdeen). At Newcastle we know that his remains were generally mocked, hanged above the sewer entrance and jeered by the crowds. But in the Scottish burghs, there was no recorded reaction. No jeers greeted the body parts, but also there was no violent reaction seeking revenge for his death.
It can be assumed that the execution was witnessed by a fair number of Scots. Many were in London for Edward’s parliament on the future considerations for the government of the kingdom. No one spoke up for Wallace at his trial, nor were there any records of a disturbance at his execution. In one respect this could be seen as telling judgment on Wallace by his contemporaries. He began and ended his short career as an outlaw, thus making it unlikely that the nobility of Scotland or the common folk would care about the manner of his ending. Not only that, but they were not in a strong position to speak up for Wallace when Edward was making decisions about the future of their lands.
As with much of what we think we know about Wallace, his death and the reaction to it has been influenced and altered by the myths that grew up around him in later generations. At the time of his death, the execution may have been extreme, but the component parts, such as the hanging and quartering, were everyday methods of punishing the crimes he had been found guilty of. From an English perspective, Wallace was found guilty of treason against his liege lord, so he suffered the punishment prescribed by law for this crime. His status as an outlaw was well known in Scotland and the punishment may not have seemed too out of place.
Additionally, by 1305, Wallace may have been seen as something of an embarrassment by most Scottish nobles, as they had effectively capitulated to Edward. Edward was drawing up the Ordinance for Scotland, a new set of rules to govern the kingdom. He had learned from his mistakes, and was now engaging actively with the Scottish nobles. Thus, it would appear that most Scots were willing to move on to a new phase of Anglo-Scottish relations.
Page 46 of 65
It is with a certain mixture of hindsight and the growth of the myth surrounding Wallace that we see the reaction to his execution grow and take shape and develop. At the time the reaction was a more muted acceptance of the inevitable guilty verdict of an outlaw.
The rise and triumph of Robert Bruce
Overview
Following his humiliating surrender to Edward of England in 1296, King John Balliol had become an ineffective, unwilling ruler. It came to a contest between two Guardians of Scotland: Robert Bruce (the younger) and John Comyn of Badenoch.
The clergy finally approached Robert Bruce, determining that he would be more likely to take the steps necessary for the usurpation of the Scottish crown. In February 1306, Bruce and Comyn met at Greyfriars Kirk in Dumfries. The two men argued, and the situation deteriorated. Bruce lost his temper and stabbed Comyn there by the altar. There was no turning back after that: the clergy stepped up their plans, hastily arranging for Bruce’s coronation at Scone on 27 March 1306.
King Edward of England sent troops to capture this ‘usurper king’, while Comyn’s relatives initiated a hunt of their own. Harried on all sides, the new King of Scots escaped and wasn’t seen again until early the following year. When he did return, he did so with confidence: King Robert the Bruce raised an army and began leveling the castles and strongholds of the Comyn family and any others who opposed him. With the death of Edward I in July 1307, there was a new English king to contend with, but Edward II lacked his father’s cleverness and experience at warfare.
The sack of the castles of Scotland continued for nearly seven more years, culminating near Stirling at the Battle of Bannockburn in June 1314. After two days of battle, Edward II and his English army were thoroughly demoralised and they eventually fled.
The remaining years until the death of Edward II in 1327 were rife with conflict and political skirmishing. Representatives of both kingdoms were sent to appeal to the Pope, first from Edward, and later from Scotland in the form
Page 47 of 65
of the Declaration of Arbroath. Finally, in 1328, after the deposition of Edward II by his wife, Isabella, there came the Treaty of Edinburgh, recognising Scotland, and her king, as entirely independent of England.
Events
The murder of Comyn
It was no secret that Robert Bruce shared his grandfather’s ambition to become King of Scots. All his actions prior to 1306 can be seen to follow this one desire. These include switching of support between the English and Scottish causes several times in an effort to win the favour of Edward I and leading Scottish nobles.
It is with this in mind that we need to consider the murder of John Comyn in the Greyfriars Kirk at Dumfries on 10 February 1306. This had not been the first meeting between the two men. There had been a great deal of negotiation between the two nobles; offers and counter-offers had been presented and rejected. The reason why the two men met on this occasion is a matter of historical speculation. The actions of Bruce at the meeting were, however, to have major repercussions.
It would appear that the two men argued. Robert’s temper got the better of him, and he stabbed Comyn. The stricken noble fell to the floor of the chapel, wounded mortally. Walter of Guisborough and John of Fordun’s chronicles both agree that Comyn was accused of betrayal and was then stabbed. Not only had Bruce murdered Comyn, but he had committed the worst of sacrilegious acts by breaking the sanctity of the church and condemning his soul to eternal damnation. Certainly, he risked his relationship with the leading bishops, Wishart and Lamberton, with this crime, and put into jeopardy the shared goal of re-establishing an independent kingdom. As Barrell argues, it is inconceivable that Bruce set out with the specific
Page 48 of 65
intention of murdering a rival within the confines of a consecrated church (Medieval Scotland, Barrell, A.D.M., 2000).
Bruce travelled to meet Bishop Wishart who pardoned him and seems to have persuaded Bruce that his only move now was to come out of hiding and have himself proclaimed King of Scots. He gathered his shocked followers and proceeded to Scone where the countess of Fife and a few nobles paid witness to his inauguration. Bishop Wishart provided the ceremonial robes for this occasion and there were clear attempts to make the proceedings as solemn and formal as possible.
King Hob
King Robert’s first few months on the throne ended in complete disaster. By the winter of 1306 his small fledgling army had already been defeated at Methven Woods near Perth (19 June). The English response to his seizure of the throne had been swift and decisive. The Earl of Pembroke, Aymer de Valence, had assembled a fast-moving body of horsemen and ambushed King Robert’s army as it was setting up camp for the night.
As King Robert fled, his murder of Comyn came back to haunt him. One of Comyn’s relations, MacDougall of Argyll, ambushed what remained of his army at Dalry at the head of Strathfillan. Once again the new King of Scots was forced to flee. Perhaps an even more bitter blow was the news that his family had failed to make it to safety and had been forced to seek refuge at Kildrummy Castle. However, Edward’s siege of the fortress had been swift and thanks to treachery from one of the defenders, unnecessary. Robert’s wife and daughter were now in the hands of his enemy, and his younger brother Niall and many of his leading supporters were publically executed. Even the venerable Bishop Wishart was captured and taken south to imprisonment in the tower of London.
On the run, with most of his family, allies and friends fallen or captured, the new King of Scots felt anything but a king. It was here that he picked up his nickname, King Hob (King Nobody). Bruce all but fell out of the history pages for a few months. Some suggest that he headed for Ireland, others that he spent a few months in the Western Isles and Orkney.
Scotland’s civil war
In early 1307, King Robert returned to Scotland and raised a small army that had a few early successes. Bruce’s brothers, Thomas and Alexander, were, however, defeated in Galloway in February 1307. Thomas and Alexander were handed to Edward who had them executed. Bruce himself planned a guerrilla campaign from his base in Carrick. He managed to re-capture Turnberry Castle in the same month, followed by his defeat of a small English force at Glen Trool. His first major success in fighting back against the English came on 10 May 1307 at Loudon Hill, when Bruce won a victory against Aymer de Valence, avenged Methven and drew more discontented Scots to his cause.
Page 49 of 65
Edward decided to lead another invasion into Scotland to deal with Bruce and his uprising, which was gathering support. By this time, however, Edward I was older and frailer. He was carried on a litter and almost reached the border. On 7 July 1307, Edward I died in Cumberland. His tombstone reads, ‘here lies Edward I, Hammer of the Scots’. The death of Edward I was of great help to Bruce, especially given Edward II’s relative lack of enthusiasm to continue the campaign in the same manner as his father. During the period following 1307, the English were concerned primarily with domestic issues.
The news of the death of Edward I on the 7 July encouraged more men to flock to Bruce’s banner. The scene was now set for a civil war in Scotland between the Bruce faction and the Comyn family and their supporters. Bruce decided to take the war to his Scottish enemies. He marched into the heart of Moray and he was able to field a force, according to Bower, of at least 3000 men. His lightning attacks on the castles of the Comyns and their followers resulted in most of them falling in just a few short months. Bruce captured Inverlochy, Urquhart, Inverness and Nairn castles.
Matters came to a head at the Battle of Inverurie. King Robert had fallen ill and the Earl of Buchan, who had failed to defeat the king earlier at Slioch, saw this as his last chance. His men believed that the king was on his death-bed, and were thus encouraged to attack. However, King Robert had recovered enough to lead his men from horseback. Buchan’s forces broke, and with them broke the power of the Comyn family in the north east. King Robert then ordered the harrowing of the north east, burning crops and livestock alike. This was the Herschip of Buchan, which devastated the area and drove out all who were still loyal to the Comyns. At the same time, Robert’s last surviving brother, Edward, led an attack an Galloway in June 1308 using similar tactics. By the late summer of 1308, Bruce was able to launch a successful campaign against Alexander and John MacDougall in Argyll, achieving victory at the Battle of the Pass of Brander, and capturing Dunstaffnage Castle. Bruce’s position within Scotland was now far more secure. He was able to distribute the lands captured from his enemies to his supporters and was able to hold his first official parliament at St Andrews in March 1309, and the Declaration of the Clergy was written to justify Bruce’s kingship. This declaration can be read as a prelude to the later Declaration of Arbroath. In the document, the clergy offer their fealty to Bruce and annoint him as the justified ruler of Scotland. Some historians, such as Watson, argue that this is illustrative again of Bruce propaganda, in light of his perceived lack of legitimacy as ruler. Furthermore, Bruce received recognition from the French, a contributing factor to the growing Scottish morale.
With significant progress made against his Scottish enemies, Bruce could now turn his attentions to the English. One by one, each of Edward II’s garrisons fell to Robert or his famous lieutenants, Douglas, Thomas Randolph and Edward Bruce, his brother. Bruce’s supporters captured Perth castle in January 1309, followed by Dumfries (1313), Isle of Man (1313), Linlithgow (1313), Roxburgh (1313) and Edinburgh (1314).
Page 50 of 65
Robert’s policy of destroying all castles that he captured meant that they couldn’t be used against him in the future. In October 1313, King Robert issued an ultimatum to those Scots who supported Edward II. He gave them one year to submit to his authority or they would face the permanent loss of their lands. It is likely that these nobles would have put pressure on Edward to launch another invasion of Scotland. By late 1313 only Berwick and Stirling remained in English hands. Edward II had not attempted to lead a costly expedition north since 1310, and that invasion had been abandoned. Stirling, the prized gateway to the north, was willing to surrender if it were not relieved by an English army by midsummer’s day 1314. This was a challenge to his authority that Edward II could not ignore. His army marched north to Bannockburn.
Bannockburn
Bannockburn was the military culmination of Bruce’s campaign. The battle was fought over two days in 1314, 23 and 24 June. Edward’s army was significantly larger than that of King Robert. Although not as large as has been proposed by some historians, it was still a significant force and when compared to the Scots, on paper at least, victory appeared certain for the English king.
First day of the battle
The first day of the battle opened as the English army approached Stirling. Edward sent two scouting parties forward, both numbering about 300 horsemen. One was under the command of Sir Robert Clifford. This was to scout the flat land to the east of the road, known locally as the Carse. The other, under the command of the Earl of Hereford, rode up the old Roman road towards the Scots position. There Hereford’s men came face to face with King Robert himself, inspecting his men at the edge of the woods.
On seeing the king, a young knight called Henry de Bohun immediately challenged the king to a duel. He spurred his horse onwards straight to the Scottish king. Henry de Bohun was considered a great knight, but the King of Scots simply waited until he was almost upon him then sidestepped his horse and killed the English knight by smashing in the back of his head with a war axe. The Scots pike men then drove off Hereford’s men with ease. Apparently King Robert’s only comment on the event was to complain about his broken battle axe.
Sir Robert Clifford’s advance fared no better. The Earl of Moray, Thomas Randolph, led his pike men out of the trees and challenged Clifford’s knights to attack. The knights were also unable to penetrate the thick wall of pikes.
After hearing about the two disastrous scouting missions, Edward and his advisers decided to move the entire army during the night. They decided to take up position across the Carse facing the Scots. They hoped this would catch the Scots unprepared and prevent them escaping. This meant that the
Page 51 of 65
English spent a restless night, coupled with the blows to morale inflicted by the two defeats.
Second day of the battle
The Scots began by marching from the forest and taking up their positions. King Edward was so amazed that the Scots had not run away he exclaimed, ‘My God will they fight?’. When the Scots kneeled in prayer, he believed they were asking him for his forgiveness.
The English positions had become terribly confused. The archers were not in a position to fire on the Scots, for fear of hitting their own men. When the three Scots schiltrons advanced towards the English, the knights did what was expected of them and charged. Here, the conditions were far from ideal. The ground was soft underfoot, making it slippery for the horses. The Scots had drilled constantly for this kind of fight. Their closely packed formations of long pikes meant it was impossible for the knights to get near them. The Scots kept advancing towards the English, slowly pushing them back towards the burn. The knights had no room to manoeuvre or retreat, and were cut down.
When the English archers did manage to position themselves so that they could fire on the Scots without hitting their own men, Sir Robert Keith and James Douglas attacked with their light horses. The English archers were unable to defend themselves and scattered.
Finally, the Scots reserves, made up of the highly disciplined men from Argyll and the Isles, as well as camp followers, rushed down from the top of Coxet Hill. The English broke and ran. Many English knights and commoners met their death while trying to cross the burn as the Scots gave chase. King Edward was eventually led away and managed to escape. Overall it was a most impressive victory, but the war was to continue.
The continuation of the war
While it is true that Bannockburn was a considerable victory for King Robert, it was not a victory that he could use to bring about an end to the war. For another 14 years Robert struggled against Edward II for official recognition as King of Scots. Edward II did share the trait of stubborness with his father. He was unwilling to surrender the claim to overlordship despite all of Bruce’s military and diplomatic efforts.
Following his victory, Bruce issued the Statute of Cambuskenneth in 1314. This forced the holders of land in both England and Scotland to choose between the two kings, and was, therefore, a way of further guaranteeing the loyalty of Bruce’s subjects.
Only a year after Bannockburn, Robert decided to take the battle to Edward II. He began by opening up a second front in Ireland. His only remaining brother, Edward Bruce, invaded with a sizeable army of Scots. Their intention was to drive the English out of Ireland and crown Edward Bruce King of Ireland. The
Page 52 of 65
plan was then to invade Wales, and set up a pan-Celtic alliance to surround England. As ambitious as this plan was, Edward Bruce wasn’t quite the leader his brother was, and he eventually failed in his quest to unite the Irish clan chiefs and to destroy the English forces. He eventually died in 1318 at Dundalk, having failed to secure the island.
King Robert also took the battle to England. His army invaded the northern counties every year between 1315 and 1318. By the end of 1318, Berwick had been recaptured and the north of England devastated. The Scots were also able to exort much needed protection money from the English communities.
Edward was angered by the Scots recapturing Berwick in 1318 so by September 1319 Edward and the Earl of Lancaster had raised an army and laid siege to Berwick. Bruce sent Thomas Randolph, the Earl of Moray and James Douglas into northern England and they caused widespread chaos as far south as Yorkshire, causing Edward to retreat. In autumn 1322 Edward led an impressive invasion force into Scotland, but Bruce retreated north of the Forth, having removed all livestock from Lothian. Edward retreated and Bruce chased him and in fact came close to capturing the English king.
The Declaration of Arbroath
While King Edward had little success in defeating King Robert in battle, he did have much more success in isolating Scotland from papal help. After all, Pope John XXII had excommunicated Robert as punishment for the murder of Comyn. In response, a letter to the Pope was sent from the Scots nobles to plead for the Scottish cause. This is known as the Declaration of Arbroath. The letter is an argument detailing the reasons for Scottish independence and justifying King Robert’s usurpation of the throne. The letter, often quoted by historians, shows that to the Scottish people, their desire for freedom is only matched by determination to keep that freedom. It even goes so far as to suggest that if the king is not successful in maintaining the freedom of the kingdom then he may be replaced. This was something almost unheard of in the Middle Ages.
The Treaty of Edinburgh
In 1328 King Robert was finally able to bring England to the peace he had so long desired. Now an old man dying of leprosy, the king lasted long enough to see the treaty sealed. King Robert had seen his opportunity to step up the pressure on the English throne in 1327 when Edward II was deposed by his wife and her lover, Mortimer. A coalition of barons seized power and murdered the king. The young prince was hastily crowned Edward III, and his mother and Mortimer were named his legal guardians, essentially in charge of the whole kingdom until he came of age.
King Robert quickly ordered his friend Douglas to invade northern England, while he visited Ireland in the summer of that year. The English at first tried to meet these threats, but were unable to counter the swift Scottish attacks. Fearing yet another rebellion among the barons, Mortimer and Edward’s
Page 53 of 65
mother, Isabella, agreed to the Scottish terms for peace. The Treaty of Edinburgh officially recognised King Robert as King of Scots, and the independence of that kingdom from England. King Robert died in 1329, but had lived long enough to see his final victory.
Key figures
Robert I, King of Scots (reigned 1306– 1329)
Son of the Lord of Annandale and the Countess of Carrick, Robert was already an important and wealthy man. However, he also took up his grandfather’s claim to the throne of Scotland. It was this claim more than anything else that drove Robert to become King of Scots. Everything else was of secondary importance: friends, alliances and even family. Robert was equally prepared to side with Edward I or the cause of Scottish rebellion if he thought it would enhance his chances of becoming king.
It is because of his single-minded determination to win the throne of Scotland, and his willingness to change sides when it suited his purpose, that many have criticised Robert for not being as patriotic as William Wallace. However, this does him something of a disservice. Robert and his contemporaries would not have seen his actions as being contrary to the future benefit of Scotland. Certainly, when he became king, Robert fought tirelessly for his new realm, and suffered many personal hardships.
Edward II, King of England (1307–1327)
Edward II has long been considered a weak and ineffectual king when compared to either his father or King Robert. It is certainly true that he was a much more cultured man than his father. He enjoyed hunting and fine arts and was an accomplished musician. It is also fair to say that he was neither a poor knight nor cowardly; he had to be forcibly led from the field at Bannockburn.
However, he was not a particularly ambitious man, and lacked his father’s drive and forceful personality. His failure in the wars with Scotland was mainly due to this. He constantly failed to grasp the larger picture and often assumed that superior numbers and equipment would be enough to cow the Scots, as his father had done in 1296.
It is likely that history has judged Edward II harshly, unfairly comparing him to his more formidable father or his Scots opponent.
The Comyn family
The Comyns were descendants of Richard Comyn, a Norman who had arrived in England in 1066. Richard was a companion of David I and accompanied him when he returned to Scotland in 1124. Since that time the family had continued to grow in influence and wealth. By the time of the Scottish wars, members of the family had become earls of Buchan, Angus and Menteith. The head of the family (or clan) was the Lord of Badenoch. He controlled a vast
Page 54 of 65
amount of land in the north and rivaled the king in both power and prestige north of the Tay. The family fought for a Balliol restoration until it was apparent that King John did not want to return.
James Douglas, ‘Good Sir James’
James was the son of Sir William Douglas, a supporter of William Wallace. His father died in the Tower of London for his support of the Scots cause, but that did not dissuade the younger Douglas from joining the cause of Robert Bruce.
Page 55 of 65
James’s land had been taken from him by Edward I and he was therefore a penniless knight. His only option of advancement was to join the Bruce cause and this he did with a great deal of enthusiasm, joining him at his inauguration in 1306.
James quickly gained a reputation as a loyal follower and an able commander. He stuck with King Robert after his early defeats and was instrumental in the capture of his family’s home, Douglas castle. He fought alongside the king at Bannockburn and became one of his army’s chief lieutenants in the years that followed.
After his death, James carried King Robert’s heart in a box to Spain in order to complete the Scottish king’s wish to go on a crusade.
Edward Bruce
Edward Bruce was one of five brothers: Robert, Edward, Niall, Alexander and Thomas. The eldest was Robert who went on to become King of Scots. Niall and Alexander were captured and executed by Edward I following Robert’s inauguration in 1306. Thomas was killed in battle.
Edward Bruce became his brother’s most loyal commander. He stuck with Robert during the early defeats and ably led several attacks on castles in the south west of the country. He commanded one of the schiltrons at the Battle of Bannockburn and fought bravely next to the common pike men, helping his brother achieve his most famous victory.
In 1315, Robert dispatched Edward to Ireland with a Scots army to open up a second front against Edward II. Once there Edward had himself declared High King of Ireland. Unfortunately his bid was unsuccessful and he died in 1318 at the Battle of Faughart, which saw the Scottish/Irish cause destroyed.
Isabella and Mortimer (reigned as Guardians 1327–1330)
Queen Isabella and Lord Roger Mortimer successfully overthrew Edward II in 1327 and they jointly became regents for her young son, Edward III. Isabella, daughter of the King of France, had married Edward II in 1307. The marriage was not a happy one. Despite bearing Edward II several sons, it was well known that he had little time for her, and was allegedly more interested in his male companions, such as Piers Gaveston.
When Edward II sent Isabella to France in 1325 to act as an ambassador to her father’s court she met Roger Mortimer, an English lord who had been banished after a failed baronial rebellion. Isabella and Mortimer both hated the king’s favourite, Hugh Despenser, and soon began to plot a new rebellion against her husband. It was at this time that the two became lovers.
The two organised an invasion of England, but they had few followers initially. Edward II, however, found that his support had withered away and was unable
Page 56 of 65
to gather much of an army himself. The king eventually was forced to surrender and abdicate in favour of his son, Edward III.
In 1330, when Edward III assumed his own private rule he had Roger Mortimer put to death, and his mother was forced to retire from public life.
Historical debate
Why kill Comyn?
It is hard to fathom out what exactly happened on that fateful meeting. The history as written after Robert’s eventual victory clearly paints Comyn in the worst possible light. According to the chronicler Bower, Comyn had betrayed Robert to Edward I, giving him full details of Robert’s proposed treachery.
Some historians have suggested that this is the reason that Edward did not fully welcome Robert into his camp after the surrender of Comyn in 1304, and the reason for Edward stripping him of the office of sheriff and requesting that he hand over certain castles. However, while this is a strong suggestion, it is hard to believe that the powerful Edward I would allow such treachery to go unchecked.
Some historians have pondered the idea that Comyn had been set up and lured to his assassination and that Robert had intended to kill him the whole time. This theory has been dismissed for several reasons:
Firstly, the very idea of committing murder in the chapel at Dumfries would have been inconceivable to Robert and his followers. The consequences for the deed were very serious and very nearly cost him his rebellion. At once he was excommunicated by the Pope, although the Scottish clergy refrained from carrying out that order. While it was true that Bishop Wishart heard Robert’s confession and forgave him, the murder turned many who were on the fence against the future king.
Secondly, because of the murder Bruce was now at war with the Comyn/Balliol faction and now he was faced with two determined enemies.
Bruce’s inauguration was a hastily assembled affair but efforts were made to hold as solemn and formal an event as possible. Bruce’s close ally Bishop Wishart was able to attend, as were many other key figures in Scotland. His wife had admonished him openly about the folly of his acts. Perhaps this more than anything tells us that Robert did not intend to kill Comyn. While his death had been tragic and foolish, it had not been premeditated.
Where did Robert hide during the winter of 1306?
Some historians have put forward the argument that King Robert spent some time in Orkney under the protection of the powerful earl. Geoffrey Barrow has quoted several 15th- and 16th-century chroniclers who have suggested that the king sought refuge in Norway itself but the most likely suggestion is that King Robert was constantly on the move, looking to gather support from the Western Isles.
Page 57 of 65
Why did the Scots succeed at Bannockburn?
The simple answer is that the Scots were better in battle. However, the simple answer is not enough to satisfy most historians. Most agree that the answer lies in two main areas: English failings and Scottish successes.Scottish successes
LeadershipThe Scots were led by a dedicated and well-motivated group of friends and allies. King Robert’s captains were veterans of the wars and had the loyalty of their men. Robert was unquestionably an able general. His use of terrain, personal courage and choice of tactics were flawless. Others, like Randolph, fought on foot next to the men of their schiltron, they led by example. All of the commanders knew their roles. They knew the aims of the day: to continually push forward and hem in the superior English army in the confines of the Carse. In essence the Scots were better led than the disorganised English.
DisciplineThe Scots troops were highly disciplined. Each man knew his place in the schiltron and, unlike under Wallace at Falkirk, they had trained at moving and staying in formation. Even during the thunderous charges of the English knights, the Scots pike men stayed shoulder to shoulder with their comrades in arms.
MoraleThe events of the previous day had boosted the morale of the Scots army. News of the defeat of the English squadrons under the command of Clifford and Hereford had inspired the men. However, more inspiring had been the tale of the duel between their king and Henry de Bohun. When the Scots prepared for battle in the morning, they were well rested; they had eaten a good breakfast and were confident that their king could win.
PlanningIt is often said that Robert had not intended to fight at Bannockburn, but he did not discount the possibility that he may have to fight and planned accordingly. The use of the holes or ‘pottes’ in the ground on the old Roman road is often cited as an anti-cavalry measure. However, in reality they were too obvious and easily spotted by the English forces. But if we consider that King Robert was playing a much more subtle game, then it is possible to believe that the Scots king had hoped to encourage the English to fight on the Carse. King Robert did everything he could to push his opposite number to fight on the ground of his choosing, including digging these easily spotted defences. This shows a clear mind and a devious plan: King Robert may not have decided on the eve of the battle to actually give fight, but he certainly had planned for that possibility and discovered a way to neutralise the English advantage of superior numbers.
Page 58 of 65
English weaknesses
LeadershipIn stark contrast to the Scots camp, the English leadership was at odds with itself. The king, Edward II, took almost no interest in the planning of the battle, and left that to his lieutenants. It is also true that there was considerable discord among the leading English nobles. Many of the greater magnates and usual leaders of the army had been overlooked by Edward during this campaign. Instead he interfered in the chain of command and promoted lesser men, some suggest his lovers, to positions of command, thereby alienating a good many of the more able leaders. Thus the leadership of the English host was anything but cohesive, and rarely acted together for the common good.
DisciplineThe knights, who made such a potentially important element of the army, were notoriously difficult to keep in check. They were always looking to the glory of the charge, and failing to recognise the importance of the other elements of the army. Consequently, the English at Bannockburn lacked sufficient discipline to engage King Robert’s formations. As the battle began, the archers were in the centre of the force, and had no way of attacking the Scots, as they had successfully done at Falkirk. Despite their failure to penetrate the schiltrons on the previous day, the knights charged headlong into the Scots with disastrous results. The English king fought bravely in the battle, but was unable to lead his men or exert any discipline on his knights.
MoraleFor many in the English forces, the night before the battle was particularly stressful. The entire army had moved during the night to take up new positions on the Carse. Thus, few had any sleep; many had to forage far and wide to find enough food and shelter for all the men. Local farmhouses had to be stripped of their doors so that temporary bridges could be built to get the horses across the burn. When the army had finally got into position they were forced to stand guard during what was left of the night, in case the Scots tried a night attack on the camp, or slipped away into darkness. Worse were the stories of the previous day’s defeats, being retold around the campfires. The news was very bleak, and many considered the Scots king invincible. Unlike the Scots, these men were not fighting for their homes or a cause they could believe in. Many were Irish and Welsh and had little love for their king. When the morning came they had only a quick cold meal before the battle began. It is little wonder that for the majority of the infantry their heart wasn’t in the fight.
PlanningThere had been little thought as to the deployment of the troops prior to the battle. None of the English commanders had believed that the Scots would actually deploy for the battle. During the night manoeuvre, the vanguard of the army had been forced to merge into a long ragged line of all the cavalry divisions. There was no thought about how the rest of the army would be
Page 59 of 65
deployed or used. Indeed, the archers were such in a position that they could not effectively be used because they would end up shooting the knights in the back. The majority of the army couldn’t even fit on the battlefield and remained on the far bank of the burn. Essentially, the English underestimated the Scots at Bannockburn and paid the price for their initial disdain of King Robert’s pike men.
Why was Edward II unable to defend northern England from the Scots?
The later years of the war are portrayed as the ineffectiveness of the English to contain King Robert. With ease, his forces were able to come south and cross the border. The northern counties were ravaged, crops burned, farmers killed, livestock and other goods stolen and the English king seemed unable to prevent it.
The reasons for this are twofold. Firstly, the wars had effectively bankrupted the Exchequer. It became increasingly hard for the monarchy to fund expensive expeditions to the north. There was little chance of real success; it had now become readily apparent that the subduing of Scotland was an unobtainable goal. Added to this was the lack of booty to entice the nobility to join in. The lack of money meant that any armies in the north would have to be provisioned and funded by the north and several years of famine up to 1318 meant that at least two expeditions to Scotland had to be cancelled. This all meant that the northern counties were essentially on their own for the most part.
Secondly, King Robert was an exceptional strategist. The few times that Edward managed to raise a suitable force to confront the Scots, he found himself unable to bring King Robert to battle. Twice, Edward led a sizeable army north towards Berwick and twice he failed to entice Robert to battle. Instead the Scottish king marched his forces south into the northern counties and laid waste to all he could find. Both times, Edward was forced to abandon his campaign to return south and protect England from the Scots armies. After the humiliating failure of the 1322 campaign, Edward could no longer rely upon his southern barons to raise such an army again.
What was the purpose of the Declaration of Arbroath?
Traditionalist historians suggest that the declaration was a patriotic expression of popular support for the Wars of Independence and King Robert by the combined freemen of the kingdom of Scotland. Some have even gone as far to suggest that the passages on replacing Robert if he failed to live up to his duties represent some of the earliest written ideas of a constitutional monarchy. Many have compared the Scots Declaration of Arbroath to the American Declaration of Independence, some going as far as to suggest that the earlier inspired the latter.
Yet how true is this? Certainly the declaration is an impressive document. It is a rousing denunciation of English foreign politics and has often been quoted.
Page 60 of 65
But was this the simple purpose of the letter at the time, or is that what it has come to mean to us, many centuries later?
The first thing to bear in mind is that the Declaration of Arbroath was a letter to the Pope ordered by the king. There was also the very real threat of King Robert’s excommunication hanging over his head since the murder of Comyn in 1306. Thus the declaration should be seen in this context. The second thing to remember is that not all the signatories to the declaration would have been aware of the contents of the letter; indeed, most would not have been present at the writing of the document. In fact, many would have been requested to send their seals to the king’s chancellor so that they could be added to the letter in order to highlight its significance. If this is true, why would King Robert feel it so important to have such a show of unity from his nobility? Was it for the benefit of the Pope, to demonstrate that his usurpation of the throne was seen as legitimate in Scotland? But there is also another
Possibility, that in 1320 the political situation in Scotland was far from as stable as traditionalists would have us believe. This was demonstrated by the ‘Soules Conspiracy’ led by William Soules, a member of the Comyn faction by birth. He was a possible heir to the Scottish throne, and had attempted to assassinate the king only a few months after the Declaration of Arbroath. The actual goal of the assassins is unclear, but demonstrates that Robert had worries about the support he had within his realm. Some historians have put forward the idea that the conspiracy may have been linked to the presence of Edward Balliol, son of John Balliol, at the court of Edward II. Perhaps William Soules was a front for Edward Balliol, who had maintained contact with those disinherited by Bruce. It is possible that the declaration was, therefore, a test of loyalty from his barons. Some of those whose seals appear on the document had supported the English up until 1314. In fact, several of the names that appear on it were to be charged with treason later in 1320. As possible support to this theory, Edward Balliol did invade Scotland alongside supporters following Bruce’s death in 1332. Clearly, Bruce continued to face factional discontent even after the Battle of Bannockburn.
Perspective
Edward I was nicknamed the Hammer of the Scots, and for many years the Scottish Wars of Independence have been credited with the creation of a sense of Scottish identity.
There is certainly some evidence to suggest this:
During the wars there was always some level of support for the resistance to Edward. Despite what appears to be a crushing victory for Edward in 1296, the cause of independence doesn’t go away. Similarly the final capitulation of the nobles in 1305 merely gives way to the rebellion by Bruce a year later.
Some historians have identified certain groups, particularly the middling sorts and the Scottish Church, as consistently supporting the cause of independence, while the nobles were often inconsistent with their support.
Page 61 of 65
Yet despite the lack of consistent noble patriotism, or a sense of national spirit, there were always those willing to lead the resistance, the Douglases, the Murrays and of course Wallace and Bruce.
Scottish identity
There were other indicators that a Scottish identity and a sense of patriotism existed during the wars:
When Stirling Castle was under siege in 1304, the defenders stated that they were holding it for ‘the Lion’, rather than for any direct political entity.
There is also an obvious popular support for the wars from the lower classes in Scotland. The majority of Wallace’s and Bruce’s armies are made up of peasants, or the ‘small folk’.
The Declaration of Arbroath has itself become a somewhat mythologised document, but has stirrings of national identity. It was written in the immediate context of a crisis in Scottish relations with the papacy. Bruce had been excommunicated for his murder of Comyn and so were several Scottish bishops. The declaration was the Scottish answer to these problems. It was designed to take the pressure off Bruce and justify his kingship, and possibly encourage the Pope to put pressure on Edward II to recognise Bruce. The declaration can, therefore, be seen from the traditionalist stance that it is proof of nationalism in Scotland. Or it can be viewed as a political tool used by Bruce, another example of his propaganda campaign to establish his own legitimacy.
However, does this mean that the wars were responsible for an awakened identity?
Historians suggest that there is evidence of a sense of Scottish identity before the wars.
Unlike Wales, Scotland was an independent kingdom. Scotland was a different kingdom from England, and its nobles had a
tradition of acknowledging a Scottish king. This became apparent before the wars, when the guardians were able to
keep control of the kingdom and rule in the name of the idea of the Scottish crown, even in the absence of a king.
The guardians’ seal, rather than bearing a likeness of the king, had images of the Lion rampant and St Andrew’s cross. It bore the inscription ‘The Seal of Scotland appointed for the government of the kingdom’.
As Alexander Grant points out, this is ‘one of the earliest and most striking examples of the appearance of the abstract concept of the state in medieval Europe’.[1]
One institution was deeply committed to Scottish independence. That was the Scottish church. For a long time the Scottish church was determined to remain free from the interference of the Archbishop of York. If Scotland’s independence was put into question, then the special relationship of the Scottish church would also be in doubt. Thus the clergy was keen to see Scotland as a separate identity.
Page 62 of 65
Bruce propaganda
Rather than believing that Scottish identity grew from the Scottish wars themselves, some historians believe that the Scottish kings manufactured a sense of identity after the wars to justify the Bruce’s usurpation of the throne. Beginning with Barbour’s epic poem, The Brus, the official history of this turbulent period was subtly rewritten, marginalising the importance of the Comyns and vilifying King John. Similarly, these official histories of the conflict emphasised the distinctions between England and Scotland. It has been argued, therefore, that the sense of Scottish identity was engineered to an extent after this period for political reasons, rather than as a direct result of the wars themselves.
The Community of the Realm
Most historians are somewhat uneasy with the idea of a strong sense of Scottish identity during the Scottish wars. However, most agree that there was an idea of the Community of the Realm which played a role in maintaining Scottish independence. The term itself, however, is a fairly loose one and is hard to define. The term first emerged in the period where the guardians were appointed after 1286, to suggest the partnership between royal authority and those who helped to exercise such authority – the justiciars, chancellor, royal sheriffs; alongside the clergy. The term, therefore, suggests the wider political community relied upon by the king. Barrow suggests that this community, in times without a king, would act to protect national interest. In this sense, it was important as a form of embryonic nationhood.
Historians are unsure how far the importance of the Community of the Realm can be taken. The guardians did refuse to acknowledge the overlordship of Edward at Norham, and only reluctantly agreed to do so when the competitors submitted. Also, the Community of the Realm is credited with the sentiments echoed in the Declaration of Arbroath. However, that document is so closely tied in with Bruce’s political ambitions that it is difficult to take too much of what it says at face value. On the other hand, the actions of Wallace and Murray, Duncan argues, should not be seen as simply a front for the Community of the Realm, as such a concept may lead to constitutional action in a period without a king but could not lead to revolt or win battles. Indeed, the Bruce faction clearly took time to accept some of the decisions favoured by other leading nobles.
Primary sources
A description of the Battle of Bannockburn (day 2), from the Lanercost Chronicle
Now when the two armies had approached very near each other, all the Scots fell on their knees to pray, commending themselves to God and seeking help from heaven; after which they advanced boldly against the English. They had so arranged their army that two columns went abreast in advance of the third,
Page 63 of 65
so that neither should be in advance of the other and the third followed with Robert in it. When both armies engaged each other and the great horses of the English charged the pikes of the Scots like into a dense forest, there arose a great and terrible crash of spears broken and of the houses wounded to death. Now the English in the rear could not reach the Scots because the leading division was in the way, nor could they do anything to help themselves, so there was nothing for it but to take flight. This account I heard from a trustworthy person who was present as an eyewitness.
In the leading division the Earl of Gloucester, Sir John Comyn, Sir Pain Tiptoft, Sir Edmund Mauley and many other nobles were killed, besides foot soldiers who fell in great numbers. Another calamity which befell the English was that whereas they had shortly before crossed a great ditch called Bannockburn, into which the tide flows, they now wanted to recross it; in confusion, many nobles and others fell into it with their horse in the crush, while others escaped with much difficulty, and many were never able to extricate themselves from the ditch. Thus Bannockburn was spoken about for many years by the English.
An extract from the Declaration of Arbroath, 1320
Thus our people (the Scots), under their protection lived in freedom and peace until that mighty prince Edward, King of the English, father of the present king, when our kingdom had no head and out people harboured no malice or treachery and were not then used to wars or attacks came in the guise of a friend and ally to invade us as an enemy. His wrongdoing, killings, violence, looting, arson, imprisonment of prelates, burning down of monasteries, despoiling and killing of religious and still other innumerable outrages, sparing neither age nor sex, religion nor order. No-one could fully describe or fully understand unless experience had taught him. But from these innumerable evils we have been freed with the help of our most valiant prince, king and lord the lord Robert, who in order that his people and his inheritance might be delivered out of the hands of enemies, cheerfully endured toil and fatigue, hunger and danger…
We are bound to him for the maintenance of our freedom both by his right and his merits, as to the one by whom deliverance has been wrought unto our people, and come what may we mean to stand by him. Yet if he should give up what he has began, seeking to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England or to the English we would exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and as a subverter of his own right and ours and we would make some other man who was able to defend us as our king. For as long as a hundred of us remain alive, we will never on any conditions be subjected to the lordship of the English. For we fight not for glory or riches or honours, but for freedom alone, which no good man gives up except with his life.
Revision ideasStudy timetable ‘Journey’
Page 64 of 65
Create a timetable of what you will study and when; build in rest periods
Imagine a topic like a journey; what’s the first step, second step and so on.
Flash cardsSummarise each topic on a small card you can carry with you and use for last minute revision
Write a songAdd key words to your favourite tune or song; see if you can then replay it in your head to remind you
Record/listen to yourselfRecord your notes; listen to it when sleeping, walking or at the gym
Making a PowerPointMake PowerPoint presentations about topics to help you learn
Friend or family helpGive people you know questions and answers then ask them to quiz you
Mnemonics Remember the first letters from words or phrases e.g. ROY G. BIV
Writing over and overWrite the same key information over and over until it sticks in your head.
Paper/notes around your house
Leave notes in your room, on the fridge or elsewhere to teach you
Past Paper questionsPractise Past Paper questions. You get them in this book or on the SQA website. Your teacher can mark them.
Playing Card revisionWrite your own playing cards e.g. question/ answer on different sides. Then test yourself or a friend.
ReadingRead your notes or new notes you’ve made; maybe on the school bus?
Link to objectsLink key topics to objects in your room to help you visualise an answer
Telling someone elseTell someone what you know about a topic; ask them to question you too
Mind mapsWrite mind maps; it’s easier than remembering whole essays
Study partnersWork with a partner; share notes and test yourself. But don’t get distracted!
Timed questionsGive yourself a short time to write everything you know about a topic.
Page 65 of 65
