HISTORICAL DEBATE
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 profo und. It not only reduced Scotland
to a client status, but 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 completely back up this assertion.
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 same
rights to interfere as he was legally claim over 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’.
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 suppor t, 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.
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2011
1
HISTORICAL DEBATE
Why was Scotland so easily subjugated in 1296?
The Battle of Dunbar, on 27 April 1296, marked the beginning of the
subjugation of King John’s Scotland. On the face of it was an easy victory by
Warenne, Earl of Surrey, against the common army of Scotland. The victory
was a psychological defeat of the entire kingdom, and its leadership.
Warenne’s forces at Dunbar were not overwhelming. However, it is to the
leadership of the Scots forces that we must look for reasons for the failure of
the Scots at Dunbar and the rest of the 1296 campaign. Put simply, they were
found wanting. The leaders of the army at Dunbar mistook a simple
reorganisation of the English forces as a retreat. They decided to abandon the
strong position overlooking the English and break formation, charging the
English knights as they were preparing to charge.
The majority of the captured Scots taken after the battle were nobles, many of
them the leaders of the Community of the Realm who had supported King
John against Edward. They were the backbone of the resistance against
England. With them in captivity the pressure and determination to stand
against Edward was 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 ye ar 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 peculate that Edward may have been
already aware of the treaty between the French and Scots . The Scots, on the
other hand, were nowhere near ready for a war with England. The defences of
Berwick had to be hastily shored up, and many of the important nobles of the
Bruce faction chose to remain loyal to Edward.
Added to this, the lack of experience the Scots actually had in fighting a war
gave Edward’s men a considerable advantage. The common army of Scotland
was summoned by their feudal lords; they had no formal military training
2
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2011
HISTORICAL DEBATE
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 2011
3