William Wallace
and
the resistance movement
Sources
1
THE RISINGS OF 1297
From The Wars of Scotland 1214-1371, Michael Brown, 2004.
As individuals and groups, the Scots were now forced to confront major threats to
their positions. Sheriffs and constables, who before 1296 had been local men,
were now largely English administrators backed by garrisons of paid soldiers.
This was rule by ‘aliens’, foreigners with no sense of the traditions and limits of
Scottish government, guaranteed to arouse fears of grasping rule in local areas.
These sheriffs and garrisons were also agents of a king who had trampled on the
rights of their king and the liberties of their realm. Such fears were increased by
demands made by the new government, real or feared. Burgesses and landowners
were anxious about plans to seize wool for sale by the crown.
How far does the source explain the growth of Scottish resistance to Edward 1296-1297?
(10)
.From Medieval Scotland: The making of an identity, Bruce Webster,
1997.
In the summer of 1297 there were a number of scattered risings in the south of
Scotland, not all of which achieved much. But under Wallace, the Scots managed
to reduce the English administration to desperation. The treasurer, Hugh
Cressingham, complained that no revenues could be collected. A separate rising in
the north under Andrew Murray quickly eliminated the English garrisons around the
Moray Firth. Professor Barrow has convincingly argued that these risings were
supported by most of the Scottish nobles who could extricate themselves from the
English grip, and even more by good numbers of the lesser gentry and commoners,
both of Moray and the southern parts of the country.
How far does the source explain the growth of Scottish resistance to Edward 1296-1297?
From The Chronicle of Walter of Guisborough.
They even dragged English monks violently from monasteries and made a sport and
spectacle of them. Among their victims were two English canons of St Andrews, who
were carried to the bridge at Perth. They stood there, being subjected to a kind of mock
trial before that bandit Wallace and expecting death at any moment. Three Englishmen
who had been given a house at St Andrews fled from Wallace and his men and ran to the
sacred stone called St Andrew’s Needle, believing they would be protected by the
sanctuary of the Holy Church. But the Scots pursued them, and cut them down at that
very stone.
2
From The Orygynale Cronykil of Scotland, Andrew of Wyntoun, 1420s.
Wallace is being chased by English soldiers. His lover, Marion Braidfute, shows him a
secret exit:
Then she made him secretly
Leave by another way from there
And with her slight deception delayed then
His foes, while to the wood he ran.
The sheriff at that time of the land
The king of England’s man
Came to Lanark and there he
Had this woman taken prisoner
And soon had her put to death.
Wallace saw all this from where he was hiding nearby
Therefore he was heavy in his heart
From Robert Bruce and the community of the realm of Scotland, G W S
Barrow, 2005.
It is possible that the sheriff of Lanark was unable to obtain the homages of William
Wallace and his brother Malcolm because they deliberately chose not to perform them.
Such a refusal would not only be in line with Wallace’s whole conduct throughout the
war, it would also explain why he was regarded as an outlaw when the rising of 1297
began. This indeed seems to be implied by Walter of Guisborough.
3
THE BATTLE OF STIRLING BRIDGE 1297
From The Chronicle of Walter of Guisborough, 1297.
The earl of Warenne commanded that all should be ready on the morrow to cross the
bridge of Stirling.
When morning came more than 5,000 of our infantry and many Welsh crossed the bridge,
but they came back again because our earl, sound asleep, had not come out on the field.
When he rose from bed after a good hour, he created some new knights, some of whom
died that very day.
Our men crossed again and returned again when the Steward of Scotland and the earl of
Lennox came. Our men thought they were carriers of good news, but they made excuses
because they could not bring their own folk to peace, and saying they could extricate
from them neither arms nor horses.
Meanwhile two friar preachers were sent to the army of the Scots which lay on the other
side on the hill above the monastery of Cambuskenneth with that robber William
Wallace, to see if they wanted to accept the peace which we offered. The robber replied,
‘Tell your men that we have not come for the benefit of peace but are ready for the fight,
to free our kingdom. Let them come on, therefore, when they want and they will find us
ready to beard them’.
They numbered, it was said, 180 knights and 40,000 infantry. And when these words
were passed on to our men the over-confident ones said, ‘Let us have at them, for these
are boasts’. But wiser ones countered, ‘Don’t let us go yet, but let us wisely consider
what would be the best for us to do’.
To this the valiant knight Richard Lundie who had come over to our side at Irvine said,
‘My lords, if we go on the bridge we are dead men, for we can cross only two by two and
our enemies are on the flanks. They will all descend on us when they want in one assault.
But there is a ford not far from here where 60 can cross together at one go. Therefore let
500 knights be given to me, and a small part of the infantry, and we will take the enemy
from the rear and engage them. Meanwhile you, my lord earl, and the rest of the
magnates with you, will cross the bridge safely enough’.
But they would not accept this wise advice, saying they would be not be safe to split up
into two parts. Different people thought different things, some crying out to cross the
bridge, some contrariwise. Among them was the treasurer, an opinionated man, the son
of death, and he added, ‘It is not expedient, my lord earl, to protract negotiations further
and spend the king’s treasure in vain. Let us go and do our duty as we are held bound’.
4
Moved by these words the earl ordered that they approach the bridge and cross. As some
said who were in that battle there was not in the kingdom of Scotland a more suitable
place to put the English into the hands of the Scots, the many into the hands of the few.
The standard bearers of the king and earl crossed and among the first was that very
valiant knight Marmaduke de Tweng. When the enemy saw that things had turned out
that they could win, soon they came down from the hill, and sending men with lances,
they seized the end of the bridge so that no one from then on could cross or return, and in
the press backwards and forwards on the bridge many were thrown from it and drowned.
As the Scots came down from the hill, the lord Marmaduke said to his companions, ‘Isn’t
it time that we rode at them, brothers?’ They answered, ‘Yes’, spurred their horses and
were soon in an encounter. Some of the Scots fell and the remaining knights almost all
turned to flight. When they were following the fleeing men, one of our men said this to
the lord Marmaduke: ‘My lord, we are deceived. For our men are not following and the
king’s and earl’s banners, including the standard-bearers of the king and earl, have
fallen’, and they said, ‘The way to the bridge is now closed to us and we are cut off from
our own people. So we think it better to risk the peril of the water, if by luck we can
cross, than to cut into the enemy formation and fall almost for nothing. It is now difficult,
even impossible, for us to cross through the middle of the Scots’.
The valiant Marmaduke replied, ‘My friends, no one will say of me that I willingly
drowned myself. Let the same be true of you. Follow me and I will make a way through
their midst up to the bridge’.
Spurring his charger he rushed on the enemy, and killing around him with his sword he
crossed through their midst unhurt, and a great way lay open to those following him, for
he was strong in arm and tall in stature. The bridge was gained by valiant fighting, all
who remained there fell to the number of almost 100 armed men and about 5,000
infantry, among them 300 Welshmen. Many were killed yet some crossed by swimming
the river.
Among the Scottish pikemen there fell the lord Hugh de Cressingham, treasurer of the
lord king. The Scots hated him and cut up his hide into little bits, not for relics, but for
derision. For he was a bonny man and pretty fat, and they called him not the king’s
treasurer, but his treacherer, and they were nearer the truth than they knew. For he had
misled many that day, but he too was misled, a slippery customer, puffed up with pride
and hot in pursuit of money.
Our earl, who remained on this side of the bridge, ordered it to be broken down and
burned.
5
From The Lanercost Chronicle, 1297.
The Scots allowed as many of the English to cross the bridge as they could hope to
overcome, and then, having blocked the bridge, they slaughtered all who had crossed
over, among whom perished the treasurer, Hugh de Cressingham, of whose skin William
Wallace caused a broad strip to be taken from the head to the heel, to make therewith a
baldrick1 for his sword. The earl of Warenne escaped with difficulty and with a small
following, so hotly did the enemy pursue them. After this the Scots entered Berwick and
put to death the few English that they found therein, for the town was then without walls,
and might be taken easily by English or Scots coming in force. The castle of the town,
however, was not surrendered on this occasion.
From Robert Bruce and the community of the realm of Scotland, G W S
Barrow, 2005.
If Warenne had shown tactical skill at Dunbar, it deserted him now. Sir Richard Lundie
asked the earl to send him with a detachment of horse and foot up river a little to the wide
Fords of Drip, where sixty men could cross the river simultaneously. ‘Once we get round
to the enemy’s rear,’ he said, ‘you can cross the bridge safely’. This was sound advice,
but it was overridden by the treasurer Cressingham. As if he had not done enough
damage by sending home reinforcements on grounds of expense, he now urged for the
same reason that no more time should be wasted, but that battle should be joined at once.
From Scotland: the later Middle Ages, Ranald Nicholson, 1974.
The outcome of the battle of Stirling Bridge was the utter overthrow of all that Edward
had so far achieved in Scotland. Once more it was hoped King John would be able to
reign in his own kingdom. The same mood of optimism appeared in a letter dated
11 October 1297 which Wallace wrote from Haddington to the merchants of Lübeck and
Hamburg thanking them for their support and informing them that it was safe again to
trade with Scotland, which was now ‘recovered by war from the power of the English’.
The letter ran in the names of Andrew Moray and William Wallace, ‘leaders of the army
of the kingdom of Scotland, and the community of the same kingdom’. The army of the
kingdom was thus accorded precedence over the community. The name of Moray was
accorded precedence over that of Wallace. But Moray had been mortally wounded at
Stirling Bridge. The death of Moray left Wallace supreme in Scotland.
1
A shoulder belt for carrying a sword
6
BETWEEN STIRLING BRIDGE & FALKIRK
Letter from Andrew of Moray and William Wallace, 11 October 1297.
Andrew of Moray and William Wallace, leaders of the army of the kingdom of
Scotland, and the community of the realm, to their wise and beloved friends: the
mayors and common people of Lübeck and of Hamburg, greetings and everincreasing sincere affection. We have been told by trustworthy merchants of the
kingdom of Scotland that you, because of your kindness, are considerate, helpful and
well disposed in all cases and matters: to this end we willingly enter into an
undertaking with you, asking you to have it announced to your merchants that they
can have safe access to all ports of the Scottish kingdom with their merchandise,
because the kingdom of Scotland, thanks be to God, has been recovered from the
power of the English. Farewell. Given at Haddington in Scotland, 11 October 1297.
How useful is the source in showing the progress made by Scottish resistance to Edward
by 1297?
(5)
Only four writs and charters issued by Wallace survive. They are well
written documents, which show that Wallace had clerks with him who
knew something of the rules of the Scottish king’s chancery. The most
interesting feature of the documents is the formal style which Murray
and Wallace, and later Wallace alone, adopted.
11 October 1297: The letter to Lübeck and Hamburg begins:
‘Andrew Murray and William Wallace, commanders of the army of the kingdom of
Scotland, and the community of the realm …..’
7 November 1297: A letter of protection issued to Hexham Priory begins:
‘Andrew Murray and William Wallace, commanders of the army of the kingdom of
Scotland, in the name of the famous prince the lord John, by God’s grace illustrious king
of Scotland, by consent of the community of the realm ……’
29 March 1298, Wallace issued a charter to Alexander Scrymgeour:
‘William Wallace, knight, Guardian of the kingdom of Scotland and commander of its
army, in the name of the famous prince the lord John, by God’s grace illustrious king of
Scotland, by consent of the community of that realm ……’
7
William Wallace in the north of England
Wallace’s raids into the north of England after Stirling Bridge are probably the best
documented episode of his short career – though seen entirely through English sources.
Sporadic raids began almost immediately after the victory at Stirling Bridge. Wallace
joined the raids in mid-November, leading an army into northern England. With Edward
still out of the country it was an ideal opportunity to seize booty and cause general
mayhem. An extensive area was covered before the Scots returned to Scotland. Wallace
was joined by men from Galloway who had a reputation for violence and indiscipline.
The Scottish raids are well documented by the Guisborough and Lanercost Chronicles.
Chronicles in the distant south, like the Chronicle of William Rishanger, were far more
sensational in their treatment of the raids.
________________________________________________________________________
The Lanercost Chronicle:
The Scots entered Northumberland in strength, wasting all the land, committing arson,
pillage, and murder, and advancing as far as the town of Newcastle, from which,
however, they turned aside and entered the county of Carlisle. They there did as they had
done in Northumberland, destroying everything, then returned into Northumberland to
lay waste more completely what they had left at first. They re-entered Scotland on the
feast of Cecilia, Virgin and Martyr, without, however, having been able to capture any
castle either in England or Scotland.
The Guisborough Chronicle
Splitting up into separate groups, and sending out scouts before them, they came
suddenly into Northumberland, whose inhabitants, thinking that the Scots would not
come, had foolishly returned to their homes. Quickly spreading all over the county, they
slew many and carried off much spoil. They set up a camp in Rothbury Forest and came
and went just as they liked, for there was no one to scare them off. At that time the
service to God totally ceased in all the monasteries and churches between Newcastle and
Carlisle, for all the monks, canons and priests fled before the Scots as did nearly all the
people. And thus the enemy went on plundering and burning with no opposition save
from our men in Alnwick Castle and a few other strong places until about 11 November,
when they gathered themselves together and moved off, harrying as they went.
8
The Lanercost Chronicle
Wallace sent into Carlisle some shameless priest who said, ‘William the Conqueror,
whom I serve, commands you to give up the town and castle without bloodshed, then you
may leave unharmed with all your goods. But if you do not instantly obey him, he will
attack and kill you all’.
(Note: Wallace was in no position to carry out the threat. He had no siege weaponry to
attack a walled town like Carlisle.)
The Guisborough Chronicle
The Scots came to Hexham Priory. Some Scots spearmen broke in there, shaking their
weapons and shouting, ‘Bring out the treasures of your church or we’ll kill you at once’.
At that moment Wallace himself appeared, and ordered his men to get out. He then
requested the canons to celebrate a Mass and they immediately began to do so. Wallace
left the church to remove his armour, while the priest made ready to distribute the bread
and wine, with the Scots soldiers crowding round him in hopes of stealing the chalice.
Indeed, when the priest returned from washing his hands in the sacristy, he found that not
only the chalice but all the ornaments of the altar had been stolen, so that he could not
celebrate the Mass he had begun. And while the priest stood wondering what to do,
Wallace returned, saw what had happened, and told his followers to pursue the men who
had done that sacrilege and hang them. But of course they were never found, for the
soldiers only pretended to seek them. Before he left the priory, Wallace gave them letters
of protection.
The Chronicle of William Rishanger
Driving together English men and women, the vile Scots tied them together and whipped
them until they dropped. They even snatched up babes from the cradle or from their
mothers’ breasts and cut them open, and they burned alive many children in churches and
schools.
9
THE BATTLE OF FALKIRK 1298
From The Scottish civil war: The Bruces and the Balliols and the
war for control of Scotland, Michael Penman, 2002.
Wallace did not have to risk everything in battle against the English king.
More gain might have been had in stringing along Edward’s huge army of
24,000 men as it entered Scotland in the summer of 1298, depriving them of
supplies and then declining to fight. But when Wallace did engage the 16,000
English, Welsh and Irish troops that remained on 22 July his host may have
been sorely weakened by the indecision of the Scottish nobility. The tradition
that it was the Comyns who betrayed Wallace at the battle of Falkirk by
withdrawing their cavalry may be later Bruce propaganda. On the day
Edward’s superior archery and horse-power overwhelmed Wallace’s four
divisions of spearmen in schiltrons (or hedgehogs); noble fence-sitting was
thus proven to be wise.
From Medieval Scotland, A D M Barrell, 2000.
The battle of Falkirk on 22 July 1298 proved to be a shattering defeat for
William Wallace. He had drawn up his army in a series of schiltrons, circular
formations which presented a hedgehog-like wall of spears from all directions.
Such units were impregnable against charges by mounted men-at-arms, but very
vulnerable to attack from archers, especially when the Scottish cavalry had left
the field and was no longer in a position to harass the English bowmen. The
departure of the Scottish mounted knights has often been seen as treachery on
the part of the nobles who resented Wallace’s pre-eminence and so were
prepared to abandon him and his army to Edward I’s superior firepower. This
explanation is unsatisfactory, for many leading Scots had in fact shown
themselves willing to join Wallace. It is much more likely the Scottish cavalry
fled in terror in the face of the more numerous men-at-arms on the English side.
Whatever the reason, the victory belonged to the English.
To what extent do the sources agree about why William Wallace was defeated at
Falkirk in 1298?
(5)
10
From The Chronicle of the Scottish Nation, John of Fordun,
1370s.
A desperate battle was fought at Falkirk on the 22 July. William was put to
flight, not without serious loss both to the lords and the commons. For, on
account of the ill will, arising from envy, which the Comyns felt towards the
said William, they, with their accomplices, fled the field and escaped unhurt.
On learning of their spiteful deed, the aforesaid William, wishing to save
himself and his men, hastened to flee by another road. It is commonly said that
Robert Bruce, who was afterwards king of Scotland, but who then fought on the
side of the king of England, was the means of bringing about this victory. For
while the Scots stood invincible in their ranks, and could not be broken by either
force or stratagem, this Robert Bruce went with one line of men, under Antony
Bek, by a long road round the hill, and attacked the Scots in the rear. It is
remarkable that we seldom if ever read of the Scots being overcome by the
English, unless through the envy of the lords, or their treachery and deceit of
other lords, taking them over to fight on the other side.
How useful is this source in explaining why Wallace was defeated at Falkirk?
(5)
From A great and terrible king: Edward I and the forging of
Britain, Marc Morris, 2009.
The Scottish cavalry – that is the Scottish nobility – had fled at the start of the
battle. That has given rise to the pernicious but persistent myth that they
secretly despised Wallace as a common upstart. Nothing could be further from
the truth. We should not be too quick to condemn as cowards men who faced
such overwhelming odds: it was massive numbers and superior firepower, not
treachery, that led to the English victory. The decision of the Scottish nobles to
flee the field, far from condemning their country to defeat, in fact proved to be
its saving grace. Had they been captured at Falkirk, as they had been at Dunbar
two years before, resistance would have come to a swift end. Edward’s first
target after the battle (after the castle at Stirling which fell in a fortnight) was
Robert Bruce. It is not known whether the young earl was among the Scottish
nobles at Falkirk, but Edward’s decision to pursue Bruce destroys the fanciful
notion that he had fought on the English side. When, in August, the king and
his men rode into Bruce’s earldom of Carrick, it was with the clear hope of
capturing a man whom they regarded as one of the main leaders of Scottish
resistance.
To what extent do the sources agree on why Wallace was defeated at Falkirk?
11
(5)
From The Wallace book, (ed Ted Cowan), Archie Duncan, 2007.
Was Wallace caught on the hop? If so, then this surely implies a shocking disregard for
elementary levels of reconnaissance. An English army of over 20,000 men is not easily
missed, even if it is intent on marching quickly under an effective commander. It is also
quite clear that the Scottish Guardian had his men arranged in an effective battle
formation, poised in their schiltrons at the top of a slope, an ideal position for an infantry
force intent on repelling cavalry. If Wallace had wished to avoid battle, surely he could
have allowed his men to slip away at the first intimation of the English army’s approach.
It makes more sense to suggest that he allowed his location to become known, having
some assurance in the strength of his position and the expected hunger and fatigue rife
within Edward’s forces. The odds were perhaps still against him, but he had done
everything he could to narrow them. And he was not Bruce, whose reputation would
have been damaged but certainly not destroyed if he had decided not to fight at
Bannockburn. Wallace’s raison d’être was victory in warfare, and he was perhaps under
pressure from all sides – from the reluctant nobility to his own men – to inflict defeat on
the Hammer of the Scots himself. But as with so many things concerning the elusive
William, we will never know.
From Medieval Scotland, A D M Barrell, 2000.
The victory at Falkirk did not restore the English position in Scotland to the
state in which Edward had left it in 1296. The next few years saw a series of
inconclusive campaigns and a continuous struggle on the part of the English
administration to maintain any authority north of the border. Money was short;
the supply of provisions was irregular; it was difficult to recruit troops for
campaigns or garrison duty, and even more so to retain them in the king’s
service when there was often no pay to prevent them deserting; royal officials
were frequently reluctant to serve in Scotland. The Scottish government in the
north was probably more successful, and the fact that it could hold a parliament
as far south as Rutherglen in May 1300 shows that it could operate across a
broader swathe of the kingdom than the English occupying forces were able to
do. Scotland had become a running sore for Edward I.
How far does the source explain the changing military balance between Scotland and
England 1298-1301?
(10)
12
GENERAL
From For freedom alone: the Declaration of Arbroath 1320, Edward J
Cowan, 2008.
In a few short months Wallace was running the government of Scotland. He was
knighted and appointed guardian early in 1298, but Wallace always claimed to be acting
‘in the name of the lord John by God’s grace illustrious king of Scotland, by the consent
of the community of the realm’, and he continued to hope for the reinstatement of John as
the rightful king of Scots. To that end he attempted to maintain pressure attacks on the
north of England and he helped engineer the appointment of the pro-independence
William Lamberton to the bishopric of St Andrews. Herein lay the seeds of Wallace’s
downfall, for in a society obsessed with strict hierarchies a man of his comparatively
humble background had no business leading armies and directing government policy.
From Robert Bruce and the community of the realm of Scotland,
G W S Barrow, 2005.
The three main achievements of Wallace’s regime were the invasion of
Northumbria, the filling of the vacant see of St Andrews and the successful
revival of the idea of guardianship. The raid which Wallace carried out south of
the border in October and November 1297 was a savage business, marked by
ghastly atrocities which seem to have been due chiefly to the lack of discipline
among the Scots. At first they plundered and slaughtered at will in
Northumberland. Many of the people, including all the clergy, fled south across
the Tyne to County Durham. The invaders then ravaged the country far and
wide. Yet Wallace, having no siege engines or experienced troops, had failed to
capture any of the castles except Stirling. Edinburgh, Roxburgh, Berwick in
Scotland, Alnwick, Newcastle and Carlisle – all these garrisons defied him
completely.
How far does the source explain the importance of William Wallace in the struggle to
regain independence?
(10)
13
From Medieval Scotland, A D M Barrell, 2000.
William Wallace has rightly become a folk-hero. Unlike Robert Bruce, the future king,
whose activities were influenced by the need to defend his broad territorial interests and
to preserve his chance of receiving the Scottish crown with Edward I’s blessing, Wallace
could concentrate on the task of freeing Scotland from English control, whether in battle
or through diplomacy. He came to prominence through his successful involvement at
Stirling Bridge, although he had clearly shown himself as a military leader before this.
His political power stemmed from this success on the field of battle and his leadership of
the savage raids into northern England which followed his victory at Stirling, but was
likely to continue only for as long as he retained that aura of invincibility, since he was
not the natural leader of the Scottish aristocratic community. Even after his defeat,
however, he was not an insignificant figure, as Edward I’s obsession with his capture
amply testifies.
From Edward I, Michael Prestwich, 1997.
From Edward’s point of view, there can have been no doubt whatsoever that Wallace was
a traitor who deserved to die a traitor’s death. The king may appear today to have been
ungenerous in failing to recognise the obvious qualities of his victim, who had shown a
great capacity for leadership. Yet Wallace had not conducted his campaigns according to
the chivalric code of the day, and there was no reason why Edward should have treated
him with compassion or respect.
14
Defeat 1302-1305
From Medieval Scotland, A D M Barrell, 2000.
The hopes of a Balliol restoration were dashed by the crushing defeat of the
French forces at the battle of Courtrai in July 1302 which forced Philip IV to seek
a peace settlement with Edward I. Furthermore, a deterioration in Franco-papal
relations caused the unpredictable Boniface VIII to take a pro-English line. He
withdrew his support from the Scots and accused the Scottish bishops of causing
the war, naming Bishop Wishart as the chief culprit. By the summer of 1303 the
grip of the English administration in southern Scotland was clearly being
tightened, and early in the following year, after Edward I had overwintered in
Scotland, it became evident to his opponents that further resistance was, for the
time being at least, pointless.
From Scotland: a new history, Michael Lynch,1991.
Circumstances outwith the control of the Scots intervened. The twin props of the
Scottish cause – the French alliance of 1295 and the support given by the papacy
from 1299 onwards – both collapsed. A severe defeat inflicted on the French at
Courtrai in July 1302 led to the conclusion in May 1303 of a separate Anglo-French
peace from which the Scots were excluded. Boniface VIII who, by the autumn of
1302, was already beginning to take a more critical view of the role of the Scottish
bishops in the war, died in 1303. None of the next three of his successors proved as
amenable to the Scottish cause.
From Scotland: a history, Fiona Watson, 2001.
It soon became clear that King John would not be coming home. The political
situation in Europe had changed and, almost overnight, the Scots found themselves,
for reasons which had nothing to do with their own cause, ditched by both the pope
and the French king. The same people who had objected so strongly to the English
presence in 1297 now felt that the interests of their families and communities would
no longer be served by indefinite warfare. Edward conducted another large-scale
campaign in 1303, crossing the Forth for the first time since 1296. The Scots were
running out of room for manoeuvre. The guardian, Sir John Comyn, sued for peace
on behalf of the people of Scotland. They had done their best and Edward
acknowledged as much with reasonably lenient peace terms, guaranteeing not only
basic property rights but also a place in government, however limited, to the
Scottish nobility. With no king and no diplomatic support, it was time for the Scots
to start planning for the future.
Questions over/
15
Using the first two sources:
To what extent do the sources agree on why Edward I was finally able to overcome
Scottish resistance 1302-1304?
(10)
As for the third source ……
Notice the question wording on the front of the Suggested activities booklet:
How far …… the crushing of Scottish resistance by Edward, 1301-5?
1301 is not a good choice of date. The date usually associated with the reversal of
fortunes for the Scots is 1302 when the French were defeated by the Flemings,
Edward’s continental allies, at Courtrai. Even then, the Scots were not down and
out, winning a victory over an English force at Roslin in 1303. The Scots submitted
in 1304; I suppose you could justify 1305 because that’s when Wallace was captured
and executed, though he was no longer a key player. It’s also the year when
Edward drew up his new scheme for the government of Scotland. (I also think the
word ‘crush’ is too strong. This was not 1296.)
How far does the source explain why Edward was able to overcome Scottish resistance
1302-1305?
(10)
OK, there is a lot of information in the source, but if the pupils have also done the
To what extent do the sources agree …… question, then they have plenty information
- if necessary also using material from the narrative booklet - to write a very full
answer.
16
From The Scottish civil war: the Bruces and the Balliols and the war for
control of Scotland, Michael Penman, 2002.
By early 1304 it was all over and in February John Comyn sought terms for his
surrender. The fact that the English king was prepared to talk terms with Comyn
and others shows that he had learnt an important lesson from his failed attempt to
exclude the Scots from the governance of their realm in 1296. Without the
Scottish establishment’s cooperation the northern kingdom would be too
expensive and hostile to hold. So in 1304 this meant securing an understanding
with the Comyns and their allies. It also meant that Edward would have to break
his word with the untrustworthy outsider, Bruce. Thus, while Edward promised
Comyn that the laws, customs and institutions of Scotland would be upheld and
that he and his confederates could retain their lands and offices after short periods
of exile, Bruce began to look after his own interest once more.
From A great and terrible king: Edward I and the forging of Britain, Marc
Morris, 2009.
Comyn and his allies surrendered early in the new year of 1304, having spent
several weeks negotiating the best possible deal for themselves and the Scottish
people. The terms they eventually secured, if not quite the total amnesty they had
hoped for, were nevertheless remarkably generous. In return for their submission,
Edward guaranteed that there would be no loss of life or limb, lands or liberty.
Some of those who came in were obliged to accept a period of temporary exile.
In truth, Edward could hardly have acted otherwise. What was presented to the
Scots as generosity was really an acknowledgement of their persisting power.
Once upon a time he had regarded the Scots as little more than a joke, a people he
might conquer in a single summer. But since then it had taken him seven long
years and every last ounce of strength to persuade them to accept surrender for a
second time.
To what extent do the sources agree on Edward’s treatment of the defeated Scots in
1304-1305?
(5)
17
And finally ……… an issues question:
From The fight for freedom, G W S Barrow, in The story of Scotland, possibly
1988.
With the defeat at Falkirk in 1298, the future survival of Scotland depended on
whether the noble class could show the will to defend their kingdom, kingless though
it was, and to unite themselves in a single national effort with the Church (strongly in
favour of independence) and the mass of the population. For nearly six years this
remarkable unity was achieved as the Scots fought off English attacks, and won the
support of the French king and the pope.
How fully does the source describe the nature of the Scottish resistance to Edward I
between 1297 and 1304?
(10)
18