In the years between 1296 and 1305, Scotland experienced a traumatic period due to the constant threat by England to take their independence. During these years Edward was in the process of expanding his empire. Prior to 1296, in 1293, he successfully took over Wales and was looking to take over the rest of what is today known as the United Kingdom. Edward had to go step by step though. He could not take over everything at once. Next, was Scotland, a week country with a king appointed by Edward himself because he thought this man would show primary loyalty to England. Little did Edward know that this man was not the man to worry about. The man he had to worry about was William Wallace, just another regular Scottish man. William Wallace was provoked to get involved with Edward by the English forces, which were sent to Scotland to patrol, invade, and destroy the towns there. Mitchinson (1970) verified that, "Edward treated Scotland as a conquered country. He deposed the King with all possible humiliations. Prisoners were taken and sent south as hostages, and every man of note was called on to swear fealty in person." (p.42) This was just the type of action that made Wallace furious.
In 1296, the English slaughtered large numbers of people in Scotland. There was no legitimate reason, but that didn't mater. The outcome did. Glover (1970) maintained the slaughters of 1296 , and, "….the iron dictatorship thereafter, the barbarity of English garrisons, all these hardened Scottish national feeling." (p. 79). Many Scots began to realize what would have to be done in order to put an end to this, but none were able or willing enough to do so, except William Wallace.
William Wallace and King Edward I were enemies from the very start until the very end. These men were extremely skilled in battle tactics. A difference here, though, is that Edward had more men than Wallace and therefore could hold out longer. Also, Edward had the benefit of not having to start the fight. This meant that the Scottish were in the position to strike first in defense of their country.
The Scots were entering a period of nationalism. This nationalistic period was the inevitable start of the War for Independence in Scotland. One spring day in 1297, Wallace and his mistress, possibly his wife was escaping their town, which had recently been invaded. "The girl was caught and put to death by the Sheriff of Lanark." (Maclean, 1970, p.38) Wallace became angered by the actions the Sheriff took. In return, Wallace killed the Sheriff. Wallace became a criminal and an extremely wanted man. This was the start of his involvement in the war.
Wallace, one of the unsung heroes of Scotland, proceeded with a small band of men to wipe out the English forces. That was, until the King of Scotland, John Balliol, made him leader of the army. Wallace took notice of Sir Andrew de Moray who had already proven his worth by overtaking northern castles of England for the Scots. Wallace quickly teamed up with de Moray and prepared for their battle.
England was superior to Scotland in that they had greater numbers. Maybe that was why they thought that defeating the Scots would be easy. They were proven wrong when Wallace and de Moray along with the Army of Scotland defeated the English at Stirling Bridge in September of 1297. Dickinson (1961) described what happened there, "The English reached the bridge at Stirling, intending to cross there. Instead they found the Scots under Wallace and de Moray barring the way, with their forces drawn up on the foothills of the Ochids, to the north of the bridge, and with the swampy coarse protecting their front." (p.158) When Wallace finally saw the English, he ordered his troops to attack. This upset led Wallace to become the master of southern Scotland. This honor, as great as it seemed, lasted a triumphant short while, for the news at the time was that de Moray was killed at Stirling.
Next for Wallace was an attack at Perth, a city just off of the Tay River. King Edward's justiciar or keeper of justice was there, William de Ormesby. This was a full attack on the English. It was a relatively quick battle, but the justiciar got away.
Wallace's biggest and most important challenge came next at Falkirk, just south of Perth. It was a pitched battle in which guerilla warfare was used. This battle required great military strategy and thought. In 1298 English forces, said to have outnumbered Scottish forces three to one, met the Scots. Dickinson (1961) described Wallace's nearly perfect tactics at Falkirk, "The spearmen, his main strength, were drawn up, like bristling hedgehogs, in four rounded compact groups, each probably three-deep, called schiltrons; and his cavalry, few in number and doubtful in quality [many Scots were tired of fighting] were in the rear." (p.159)
Wallace was unfortunate to lose his battle, which ended his career, but the English were too powerful. In this battle, Wallace faced off with King Edward himself. Wallace's plan was to have his spearmen fend off the horsemen and then send in whatever infantry he had, which was only about 10,000 men. On the other hand the English had nearly 15,000 men as infantry along with another 10,000 in cavalry. The English won by having large numbers.
After ending his career at Falkirk, Wallace disappeared and many have no clue as to what he did next. Some people believe he reeked havoc on the English and the Scottish nobles, who had recently betrayed him. Others believe he fled to France or Norway until an English knight captured him in 1305. He was brought to Westminster Hall in London where he was tried for treason. He was sentenced to death, as a traitor. Mackie (1963) relayed Wallace's death, "He proudly declared that he was no traitor, for he had never taken the oath of allegiance to an alien monarch and so could never have broken it." (p.62) Wallace died, "the unspeakably horrible death that in those days was reserved for traitors of whatever rank." (p.62) At the time of his death in 1305, little is known about Wallace's age, other than he was a fit man and was not very young or old.
While Wallace was demolishing English forces, Edward I was of no threat to him. The only way he can harm is to order his men to go to battle. This is to say he was not ineffective for the English. Edward practically ruled the Scottish people. He appointed John Balliol, King of Scotland, because he knew him and expected him to favor the English. This appointment backfired as Balliol scrounged up men for Wallace and the army. In fact, it was Edward who sent the English forces up to Scotland to raid villages. Therefore, this is why Wallace was outraged at him; Edward was responsible for his lover's death.
Once Edward heard about Wallace's uprising, he was obligated to take control of military strategy. As Wallace was preparing for Sterling Bridge, Edward was assembling an army to send out. His strategy was unclear and would have been broken by the Scottish army anyway. Mackay (1995) noted, "this was a volunteer army, and what it lacked in experience, it made up for in motivation [The Scots hated the English]. The English army, on the other hand, was essentially a feudal host, its ranks drawn largely from men who where pressed into service as part of their obligations to their feudal superiors." (p.142) Edward's army included Welsh archers who made the battle for the English as they shot at the Scots on the hill. Edward himself did not command the army at Stirling, though he would later join it at Falkirk. His great English strength, anyhow, was defeated at Stirling by Wallace.
Edward, after the English force had been humiliated at Stirling, was not convinced that the Scots were as powerful as the English, yet he did not take this loss lightly. To Mackay (1995), "The humiliation of the English was something that King Edward now addressed himself towards avenging." (p.155) In the next months, Edward was busy ordering English forces around while defending northern English castles from Wallace. Many of his men were lost in Wallace's sometimes successful invasions. Mackay (1995) said, "Edward was in no position to do much about Scotland." (p.176) This was very true until the Battle at Falkirk. Edward himself, unlike Stirling, decided to head the army against Wallace on the pitched, wide open field at Falkirk, or "Fawkirke." (Somewhere along the lines of interpretation, the name Fawkirke became Falkirk, which is really a city north of the battlesight. Mackay (1995) received info from the British library saying the actual battlesight was Fawkirke, but why change it if everyone knows it as Falkirk). Edward was, "in charge of 87,500 men." (Mackay, (1995) p.187) But two men, Dupuy and Dupuy (1970) noted, "Edward headed 7000 heavy cavalry, 3000 light cavalry, and 15000 infantry." This only adds up to 25,000 men. The English were supposed to have outnumbered the Scots three to one, so that is obviously and curiously a misinterpretation. Most of Edward's men were volunteers. These Irish and Welsh soldiers gave the English a hefty advantage. Edward's primary tactic was to let his men feast before battle while the Scots were starving and tired. He conjured up this idea because, "since the Scots have been fighting for so long they could not have eaten for at least 24 hours." (Mackay (1995) p.196)
Edward had his hands full. Not with the Scots, but with the decision of how to beat them, because he had an assortment of strategies. He sent a band of Welsh cavalry for his first attack, only to get smothered by a marshy patch of land just before the Scottish lines. His second attack consisted of reliable horsemen. He wiped out some Scots, but more horses and soldiers died for the English in this attack as they were speared to death. Edward then ordered a band of cavalry to angle off right of the marsh and attack to the Scottish left flank. After this, more cavalry crossed the marsh carefully as Edward and the third attack waited patiently. Soon enough the English beat the Scots. The Scots put up a great fight, but the English had too much strength in numbers. All the leftover Scots retreated north as Wallace fled to an unknown place. This battle, led by 58 year old Edward, was a turning point for the English in the war, and the ending of Wallace's career.
With Wallace out of the picture, Edward I relaxed a bit, but still began to crack down on Scotland. Year after year, he became more powerful. Then, in 1305 came possibly the most joyous time of his life. In this year, an English knight captured Wallace and brought him to Westminster Hall in London. Edward, now in his early sixties and on his deathbed, put Wallace to trial. The commissioners charged him with treason against the King. Wallace was found guilty and sentenced as a traitor who, in those days, would be brutally executed. Edward lived to see this happen. Mackay (1995) gives an account of the scene, "Outside Westminster Hall, he was stripped naked and bound to a hurdle, face upwards, head pointing downward and dragged through the streets at the tails of two horses. The four-mile journey through the fetid streets on a hot summer's day would have been extremely unpleasant at the best of times, but the circuitous route was chosen with care to ensure maximum expose to London." (p.263) He goes on to say, "They pelted their humble enemy with offal, and garbage and excrement, and struck him with their cudgels and whips as he bounced along the cobblestones." (p.264) The final stage of his sentence consisted of Edward watching Wallace get humiliated. Mackay believed, "the hanging, mutilation and disemboweling, and final beheading were all regarded as death three times over." (p.265)
Over the years of conflict between Scotland and England, it turns out that there was a rivalry between Wallace and Edward. Both were great leaders and military tacticians. But the only thing was, Wallace will always be the unsung hero of Scotland, and Edward will always be the man who got Wallace killed. Finally, people find it compelling how similar Wallace's death was to that of Hector when Achilles dragged him around the walls of Troy. It just goes to show how great of a rivalry there was between them. That is, because the Iliad is such a universal source of military tactics, it is interesting that Edward recreating one of the most famous deaths of ancient Greece in his final treatment of Wallace. That is something to think about today, because as Edward had proven, history repeats itself.
Works Cited
For more information on William Wallace, try these two webpages:
Return to Index