THE SCOTTISH WARS OF INDEPENDENCE, 1286–1328
The Scottish Wars of Independence, 1286–1328
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 clear risk of civil war breaking out a mongst 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.
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 Scott ish 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.
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.
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2009
1
THE SCOTTISH WARS OF INDEPENDENCE, 1286–1328
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 of the Scottish nobles and Alexander was
able to get rid of him by enlisting the aid of his future father -in-law, Henry
III of England.
In summer 1251, Alexander married Margaret, Henry III of England ’s
daughter, creating close ties with his southern neighbour. Henry awarded
Alexander a lot of lands in England as a wedding gift, and the Scottish king
agreed to Henry III being his 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
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 was able to make 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
2
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2009
THE SCOTTISH WARS OF INDEPENDENCE, 1286–1328
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 to accomplish his goals. 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 struc k 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 s eized
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
children by this date had created a potential cris is 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
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2009
3
THE SCOTTISH WARS OF INDEPENDENCE, 1286–1328
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 1286 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
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
4
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2009
THE SCOTTISH WARS OF INDEPENDENCE, 1286–1328
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 mort ality
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 n ecessary 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 to gether 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.
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 Ki ng 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
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2009
5
THE SCOTTISH WARS OF INDEPENDENCE, 1286–1328
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 poin t 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
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.
6
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2009
THE SCOTTISH WARS OF INDEPENDENCE, 1286–1328
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 h elp 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 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.
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2009
7
THE SCOTTISH WARS OF INDEPENDENCE, 1286–1328
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.
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.
8
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2009
THE SCOTTISH WARS OF INDEPENDENCE, 1286–1328
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, Alexande r 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 1292–1296)
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 hop ed 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 war rior, 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 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’
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2009
9
THE SCOTTISH WARS OF INDEPENDENCE, 1286–1328
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 indep endence 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 tha t 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 t imes for Edward I in the Welsh
wars, John was the grandson of Ada, the youngest daughter of David, Earl of
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. Th ere
10
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2009
THE SCOTTISH WARS OF INDEPENDENCE, 1286–1328
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.
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2009
11
THE SCOTTISH WARS OF INDEPENDENCE, 1286–1328
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 Larg s 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 S cone, 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 .’[1]
[1] A History of Britain Volume 1 (Schama, 2000, p 198).
How important is the idea of the Community of th e 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
12
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2009
THE SCOTTISH WARS OF INDEPENDENCE, 1286–1328
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. On the other hand,
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
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 notabl e achievement for them to have held
the kingdom together in the name of a three -year-old, to enforce the laws and
negotiate with a foreign power.
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 .’[2] 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’.[3]
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.
[2]Robert Bruce (Barrow, 1988, p 16).
[3]In Search of Scotland (ed. Gordon Menzies, 2001, p 68).
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
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2009
13
THE SCOTTISH WARS OF INDEPENDENCE, 1286–1328
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 have argued 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 despit e 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 on behalf of the
betrothed couple, 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
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 c redence 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 do know that Edward had written to all English monasteries asking them
to search their records and libraries for any wr itten 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.
14
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2009
THE SCOTTISH WARS OF INDEPENDENCE, 1286–1328
Most historians agree that Edward, who was on friendly terms with Alexander
III, saw this as his opportunity to take advanta ge 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, with one taking the title as well as his share of
land. 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
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 of Independence 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
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2009
15
THE SCOTTISH WARS OF INDEPENDENCE, 1286–1328
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 th e first to swear an oath
of fealty to Edward, and often acted subserviently to the English king in the
hope of securing his favour and forwarding their cause.
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.
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.
16
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2009
THE SCOTTISH WARS OF INDEPENDENCE, 1286–1328
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 wa s
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 wa s a
vassal kingdom, with a vassal king.
The new Scottish Government
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 sys tem 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 unfavou rable
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
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2009
17
THE SCOTTISH WARS OF INDEPENDENCE, 1286–1328
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 exam ple 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,
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 wh en 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
18
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2009
THE SCOTTISH WARS OF INDEPENDENCE, 1286–1328
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 Scots.
 King John and the Comyn lords retreated to the north east, and there they
contemplated surrender.
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 g round. John would
subsequently be known as Toom Tabard or ‘empty coat’.
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2009
19
THE SCOTTISH WARS OF INDEPENDENCE, 1286–1328
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 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. Historians have for the most
part gone along with this, although they are more scientific in their criticisms.
John’s short reign was dominated by the question of overlordship, and he was
humiliated by Edward on several occasions. It is clear that Edward had
considerable influence over John’s government.
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.
Was John a bad king? It is hard to say as he didn’t really have enough time to
settle into the role. He held several parliaments, and set out his agenda in
Argyll, Kintyre and in other areas by establishing sheriffs and making plans
20
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2009
THE SCOTTISH WARS OF INDEPENDENCE, 1286–1328
against powerful locals who balked at the king’s rule. None of these activities
seem to be weak or indecisive. Was he an unlucky king? It is easier to agree
with this; he didn’t need to go looking for his problems.
At a parliament held in Stirling in early July 1295, it was agreed that a
Council of Twelve would be named in order to govern alongside or instead of
King John. They were four earls, four barons and four bishops.
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 -incommand, 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 tha t 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.
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.
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2009
21
THE SCOTTISH WARS OF INDEPENDENCE, 1286–1328
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 campaig n. 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
22
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2009
THE SCOTTISH WARS OF INDEPENDENCE, 1286–1328
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 agai nst
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 m ilitary 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.
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2009
23
THE SCOTTISH WARS OF INDEPENDENCE, 1286–1328
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 Patric k 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 n ame, 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 e vidence for this. Historians
such as Fiona Watson argue that he was simply not important enough
for his seal to have been sought.
William Wallace and Scottish resistance
Overview
Following the capitulation of Scotland in 1296, Edward was keen to mainta in
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
24
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2009
THE SCOTTISH WARS OF INDEPENDENCE, 1286–1328
argues, the conquest of 1296 had likely resulted in only a handful of leading
Scots resigning themselves to a permanent English occupation, giv en 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 t he 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, W allace was stripped
and dragged by horses through the streets, after which he was hung, drawn
and quartered, and his dismembered body parts were sent to five different
cities for display as a reminder of Edward’s wrath.
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
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2009
25
THE SCOTTISH WARS OF INDEPENDENCE, 1286–1328
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, inc luding 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 y et been
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 Mur ray 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, N airn 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
26
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2009
THE SCOTTISH WARS OF INDEPENDENCE, 1286–1328
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 going s 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 .
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.
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2009
27
THE SCOTTISH WARS OF INDEPENDENCE, 1286–1328
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 l onger 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?
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
28
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2009
THE SCOTTISH WARS OF INDEPENDENCE, 1286–1328
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 of Scotland.
Continuing Scottish resistance
With the resignation of William Wallace after the Battle of Falkirk, Scottish
resistance to Edward I continued under the guidance of 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, having been
starved into submission. 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 joi n 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
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2009
29
THE SCOTTISH WARS OF INDEPENDENCE, 1286–1328
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 winte r.
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 considerably. 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 famo us, if
somewhat misleading film and countless books, his name has become
30
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2009
THE SCOTTISH WARS OF INDEPENDENCE, 1286–1328
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
important to remember that Blind Harry was writing in the 1470s with the
purpose of creating a mythologised view of Wallace as James II I 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 descr ibes 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.
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2009
31
THE SCOTTISH WARS OF INDEPENDENCE, 1286–1328
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 a t 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 h ad 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.
32
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2009
THE SCOTTISH WARS OF INDEPENDENCE, 1286–1328
Cressingham was both rich and lazy, but in the Welsh wars he had proven
that he was a reasonably able soldier. Nevertheless, his performan ce 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-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.
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
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2009
33
THE SCOTTISH WARS OF INDEPENDENCE, 1286–1328
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.
 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 Stirl ing. 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.
34
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2009
THE SCOTTISH WARS OF INDEPENDENCE, 1286–1328
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 p ower 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 h is 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 o f 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?
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.
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2009
35
THE SCOTTISH WARS OF INDEPENDENCE, 1286–1328
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, hung 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
36
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2009
THE SCOTTISH WARS OF INDEPENDENCE, 1286–1328
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.
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 tak e
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 a ll 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 of the Declaration of Arbroath. Finally, in 1328, after the deposition of
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2009
37
THE SCOTTISH WARS OF INDEPENDENCE, 1286–1328
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
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.
38
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2009
THE SCOTTISH WARS OF INDEPENDENCE, 1286–1328
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). King Hob all but f ell 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.
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 more frail. 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
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2009
39
THE SCOTTISH WARS OF INDEPENDENCE, 1286–1328
clearly 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 w ith
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 j ust 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 deathbed, 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 growi ng 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).
40
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2009
THE SCOTTISH WARS OF INDEPENDENCE, 1286–1328
Robert’s policy of destroying all castles that he captured meant that th ey
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 a bandoned.
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 ba ck 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, Th omas
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.
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2009
41
THE SCOTTISH WARS OF INDEPENDENCE, 1286–1328
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
English spent a restless night, coupled with the blows to morale inflicted by
the two defeats.
Second day of the battle
The Scots began the day 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
even 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 cu t
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. Enough was enough and 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
42
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2009
THE SCOTTISH WARS OF INDEPENDENCE, 1286–1328
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 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 nort h 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. A copy of this document survives today, and is known as
the Declaration of Arbroath.
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2009
43
THE SCOTTISH WARS OF INDEPENDENCE, 1286–1328
The letter is a sophisticated argument detailing the reasons for Scottish
independence and justifying King Robert’s usurpation of the throne in 1306.
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 with someone who will.
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
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.
44
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2009
THE SCOTTISH WARS OF INDEPENDENCE, 1286–1328
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 person al 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 h unting 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
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.
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2009
45
THE SCOTTISH WARS OF INDEPENDENCE, 1286–1328
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 t he 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 overth rew Edward II in
1327 and they jointly became regents for her young son, the newly crowned
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
46
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2009
THE SCOTTISH WARS OF INDEPENDENCE, 1286–1328
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 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 fate ful 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 i ntended 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 ver y 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.
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2009
47
THE SCOTTISH WARS OF INDEPENDENCE, 1286–1328
Bruce’s inauguration was a hastily assembled affair but effort s 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.
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 ans wer
lies in two main areas: English failings and Scottish successes.
Scottish successes
Leadership
The 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
and love 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.
Discipline
The 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.
Morale
The events of the previous day had done much to boost the morale of the
Scots army. News of the defeat of the English squadrons under the command
48
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2009
THE SCOTTISH WARS OF INDEPENDENCE, 1286–1328
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.
Planning
It 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 actual ly give fight, but he certainly
had planned for that possibility and discovered a way to neutralise the
English advantage of superior numbers.
English weaknesses
Leadership
In 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.
Discipline
The 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 bra vely in the
battle, but was unable to lead his men or exert any discipline on his knights.
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2009
49
THE SCOTTISH WARS OF INDEPENDENCE, 1286–1328
Morale
For 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.
Planning
There 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
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
50
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2009
THE SCOTTISH WARS OF INDEPENDENCE, 1286–1328
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 and inspiring denunciation of English foreign politics and has
often been quoted. 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 doc ument. 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
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2009
51
THE SCOTTISH WARS OF INDEPENDENCE, 1286–1328
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 f ew 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.
Primary sources
A description of the Battle of Bannockburn (day 2), from th e 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, 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 t o 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
52
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2009
THE SCOTTISH WARS OF INDEPENDENCE, 1286–1328
Bannockburn, into which the tide flows, they now wanted to recros s 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 pe ople 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 wi th 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 t o 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.
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 resis tance
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
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2009
53
THE SCOTTISH WARS OF INDEPENDENCE, 1286–1328
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.
 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.
54
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2009
THE SCOTTISH WARS OF INDEPENDENCE, 1286–1328
 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.
[1]Independence and Nationhood, Scotland 1306–1469, Grant, A., Edinburgh
University Press, 1984, p 34.
Historians’ views
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 separate identity after the wars in order 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 perhaps 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
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2009
55
THE SCOTTISH WARS OF INDEPENDENCE, 1286–1328
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.
(Barrow, G. W. S; Robert Burce and the Community of the Realm of
Scotland).
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 ( ‘The
Community of the Realm of Scotland and Robert Bruce: A Review ’, Duncan,
Scottish Historical Review xv, 1966). Indeed, the Bruce faction clearly took
time to accept some of the decisions favoured by other leading nobles.
It is true to say that the Scots believed in their kingdom’s rights enough that
they banded together, albeit sporadically, to defend what they referred to as
their ancient rights and responsibilities. Perhaps this is as close to patriotism
and national pride as we can expect in the middle ages.
56
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2009