William Wallace: Hero or Fool?

[LochNessLizard]

Few contemporary sources for information about Wallace's early life exist, and much reliance is placed on the account of Blind Harry, written around 1470, roughly two centuries after Wallace's birth. We are told that he was born in Ayrshire, his father was Sir Malcolm Wallace of Riccarton, and that he had two brothers, Malcolm and John.


He received his education from two uncles who were priests, and therefore became well-educated by the standards of the time, knowing both French and Latin. Blind Harry makes no mention of his ever having left the country, or having any military experience before 1297. A record from August, 1296 makes reference to 'a thief, one William le Waleys' in Perth.

Scotland in Wallace's time
Contrary to popular belief, John Balliol had a right to the Scottish throne. However, it was deemed necessary for an independent arbitrator to be invited to Scotland, so that no accusations of bias would be levelled at the arbitrator. Much to their folly, the Scots invited Edward I of England to decide the succession of the Scots throne. Instead of coming as an independent arbitrator, he arrived at the Anglo-Scottish border with a large army and announced he was an overlord coming to solve a dispute in a vassal state, forcing each potential king to pay homage to him. After hearing every claim, Edward picked John Balliol to be king over what he described as the vassal state of Scotland. In March of 1296, Balliol renounced his homage to Edward, and by the end of the month Edward had stormed Berwick-upon-Tweed, sacking the border town with much bloodshed. In April, he defeated the Scots at the Battle of Dunbar (1296) in Lothian, and by July, Balliol had been forced to abdicate at Kincardine Castle. Edward went to Berwick in August to receive formal homage from some 2,000 Scottish leaders, having previously removed the Stone of Destiny from Scone Palace, seat of Scottish kings. Scotland was now effectively under English rule.

Wallace's exploits begin
The following year, 1297, was to see the start of Wallace's rise to prominence. According to local Ayrshire legend, Wallace was challenged by two English soldiers over fish he had caught. The argument escalated into a full-scale fight, with the result that Wallace killed the soldiers. A warrant for his arrest was issued shortly thereafter. Whether this is true or not, it is clear that Wallace had a long-standing hatred of the English, partially based on his father's death at their hands in 1291. He further avenged his father's death by winning battles at Loudoun Hill (near Darvel, Ayrshire) and Ayr. By May he was fighting with Sir William Douglas in Scone, routing the English justiciar, William Ormsby. Supporters of the growing popular revolt suffered a major blow when Scottish nobles agreed to terms with the English at Irvine in July, and in August, Wallace left his base in Selkirk forest to join Andrew de Moray's army at Stirling. Moray had started another rising, and their forces combined at Stirling, where they prepared to meet the English in battle.

The battle of Stirling Bridge
September 11, 1297, saw a decisive victory for Wallace and the Scots at Stirling Bridge. Despite being vastly outnumbered, the Scottish forces led by Andrew de Moray (a more prominent noble, being a first son) and with Wallace as their captain, routed the English army. The Earl of Surrey's professional army of 300 cavalry and 10,000 infantry met disaster as they crossed over to the north side of the river. The bridge was too narrow for many soldiers to cross at once (possibly as little as three men abreast), so while the English soldiers crossed, the Scots sat back and killed the English as quickly as they could cross. English soldiers started to retreat as others pushed forward and under the overwhelming weight, the bridge collapsed and many English soldiers drowned. Unbeknownst to the now chaotic English army, part of the Scots army had forded further up the river. With the English army split on either side of the river, the two Scots forces pressed both halves of the English army towards the river. It was an overwhelming victory for the Scots and a huge boost to the confidence of the Scottish army. Hugh Cressingham, Edward's treasurer in Scotland, was killed in the fighting.

Following the victory, Wallace was made a knight and Guardian of Scotland in March 1298. Unfortunately, de Moray was mortally wounded in the battle and died three months after it took place. Their partnership had proved successful but Wallace was now on his own, with bigger battles still to face.

The battle of Falkirk (1298)
A year later, however, the tables were to be turned. On June 25, 1298, the English had invaded Scotland at Roxburgh. They plundered Lothian and regained some castles, but had failed to bring Wallace to combat. The Scots had adopted a 'scorched-earth' policy, and English suppliers' mistakes had left morale and food low, but Edward's search for Wallace would end at Falkirk.

Wallace had arranged his spearmen in four 'schiltrons' – circular, hedgehog formations surrounded by a defensive wall of wooden stakes. The English were to gain the upper hand, however, attacking first with cavalry, and wreaking havoc through the Scottish archers. The Scottish knights fled, and Edward's men began to attack the schiltrons. It is not clear whether the infantry throwing bolts, arrows and stones at the spearmen was the deciding factor, or a cavalry attack from the rear.

Either way, gaps in the schiltrons soon appeared, and the English exploited these to crush the remaining resistance. The Scots lost many men, but Wallace escaped, though his pride and military reputation were badly damaged.

By September, 1298, Wallace had decided to resign his guardianship to Robert Bruce, Earl of Carrick, and John Comyn of Badenoch, ex-King John Balliol's brother-in-law. Bruce became reconciled with Edward in 1302, while Wallace spurned such moves towards peace. He spent some time in France on a presumed diplomatic mission.

Wallace's capture and execution
Sir William managed to evade capture by the English until May 1305, when Sir John de Menteith, a Scottish knight loyal to Edward, captured him near Glasgow. After a show trial, the English authorities had him horribly executed on August 23, 1305, at Smithfield, London in the traditional manner for a traitor. He was hanged, then drawn and quartered, and his head placed on a spike in London Bridge. The English gowernment displayed his limbs in a grisly fashion separately in Newcastle, Berwick, Edinburgh, and Perth.

The plaque in the photograph above stands in a wall of St Bartholomew's Hospital near the site of Wallace's execution at Smithfield. Scottish patriots and other interested people frequently visit the site, and flowers frequently appear there.

The 1995 motion picture, Braveheart, offers a very loose account of William Wallace's life.

LNL

 

[Brian G Turner]

You mention "English Army" and "English soldiers", but I'm very much under the impression these were, in majority, Scottish soliders in a Scottish army under English direction.

Like much of Scotland battles with the "English", it was actually a battle between Scottish lords, who differed as to their loyalties - ie, to the throne, or to an uprishing/pretender.

 

[The Ace]

A hero. End of.

 

[reiver33]

Reading the above account of his life and times - what there would lead anyone to describe him as a fool?

 

[Peter Graham]

I'd say he was neither hero nor fool.

As Brian implies, it is all too easy to re-invent our history. Braveheart is a fine example, which takes one episode from the centuries old, pan-European dynastic struggle and re-invents it as a stirring tale of the little man (literally as well as metaphorically given the choice of actor...) facing insurmountable odds in the name of freedom, goodness and all that is holy.

The reality is rather different. Wallace was a minor noble - so he's one of a small caste of (probably) French-speaking oligarchs who were effectively running both England and Scotland as outliers of a greater Angevin/Plantaganet empire. Edward Longshanks and his son didn't consider themselves to be Englishman and I doubt whether Wallace considered himself to be a Scotsman. And even if he did, notions of national pride and self-determination would not have featured on his radar. It was all about power. At root, Wallace was no better and no worse than Edward and was pursuing substantially the same ends - power and authority over others. Both sides killed, burned, pillaged and looted and both were led by people whom today would be regarded as pretty nasty bits of work.

But if it's difficult to see him as a hero, it would be grossly unfair to term him a fool. He has to be seen in his own context - a man of his time. And he undoubtedly has a prominent place in the mythology of modern Scotland. So, in that context, he can be imbued with the characteristics of heroism, not because he actually displayed them, but because he fills that role in the story of a proud and splendid nation. And there is nothing much wrong with that (every nation does the same thing) - provided one realises that myth and history are not quite the same thing.

Regards,

Peter

 

[River Boy]

You mention "English Army" and "English soldiers", but I'm very much under the impression these were, in majority, Scottish soliders in a Scottish army under English direction.

Like much of Scotland battles with the "English", it was actually a battle between Scottish lords, who differed as to their loyalties - ie, to the throne, or to an uprishing/pretender.

That seems to have been the case with the Battle of Culloden, but I've never heard it about Edward I's armies, who were even full with Welsh and Irish. Certainly when The Bruce eventually defeated Edward II it was done after war with the English had been avoided in favour of conquering the divisions in Scotland so the nation could stand as one against the English when it did occurr at Bannockburn. Your post seems to suggest that England and Scotland have never really been at war.

I personally think that Wallace was a hero, despite the romanticising of him. It's very hard to see him as a political figure in any way, especially as he gave up the Guardianship of Scotland upon realising he wasn't strong enough to defeat Longshanks. I don't think the joint Guardianship of Bruce and Comyn was asked for as they were bitter opponents and Bruce ended up murdering Comyn.

 

[Foxbat]

I think - given the right (or wrong) amount of information, we could pigeon hole any historical character as hero or villain. The English/Scottish relationship has always been quite complicated and intertwined throughout history.

The fact that he gave up the guardianship (to me) shows a level of political intelligence and pragmatism. I think that he was probably a person worth knowing. But this in itself does not define him as being in either camp.

Personally, I regard Wallace neither as hero or villain but as a very important historical character who - during his time upon the Earth - did much to shape the futures of both Scotland and England.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Your post seems to suggest that England and Scotland have never really been at war.

No, it's more the romantic point I was addressing, which sees Wallce leading an army of Scotsmen against an army of Englishmen, when really it was Scotsmen vs Scotsmen, their loyalties divided.

Good comment, btw, Peter Graham.

 

[River Boy]

No, it's more the romantic point I was addressing, which sees Wallce leading an army of Scotsmen against an army of Englishmen, when really it was Scotsmen vs Scotsmen, their loyalties divided.

Good comment, btw, Peter Graham.

What sources say there were more Scotsmen than Englishmen on Edward's forces?

 

[Brian G Turner]

Even the film Braveheart made the point that Wallace was fighting against other Scottish lords.

 

[Peter Graham]

What sources say there were more Scotsmen than Englishmen on Edward's forces?

'Twas ever thus. For most of its history, the Scottish monarchy was relatively weak. It relied heavily on the support of the nobles, many of whom ran huge areas of the country as private fiefdoms. The geography and political loyalties of much of Scotland (which was based around familial/tribal loyalty over loyalty to the body and person of the king) probably had much to do with the weakness of the Stuart kings. It was a great shame that possibly the best Scottish king - James IV - died at Flodden. Had he not, he may well have strengthened the Scottish monarchy.

In many ways, there are similarities to the political situation in modern day Pakistan, where enormous swathes of the country are effectively free of central control, or pay it little more than lip service. The Highlands were always beyond the effective and direct reach of government from Holyrood and the Lowlands - especially the Anglo Scottish border - was every bit as bad. Families like the Maxwells basically owned the border counties and spent far more of their time feuding and reiving than they did ensuring good governance. The direct input of the Scottish crown into border affairs was all too often limited to judicial raids, in which the monarch and his forces would sweep across the countryside, administering jeddart justice to the local villains (the tale of Black Jock Armstrong is a nice case in point), before going home again.

So, when it came to English inteference, it was very easy to stir up simmering resentments and feuds. It was also difficult for medieval monarchs to maintain an army in the field - much easier to rely on local forces, be they the vassals of sympathetic Scottish lords, or levies from the English or Scottish border counties who, used to living and dying by thieving and raiding, were a ready supply of excellent irregular, light troops.

There probably are no troop lists showing exactly where every soldier on each side came from. But we know more about the lords who fought on each side - and when they fought, they turned out with thier vassals and retainers.

Regards,

Peter

 

[River Boy]

But Flodden wasn't during Edward I's reign. Later conflicts yes, but all I've read on the battles of Stirling Bridge, Falkirk and Bannockburn suggest a massive English presence and that, though the loyalty of Scottish nobles was an issue for Wallace and The Bruce, it was mainly getting them to turn up that was the problem as opposed to having to fight against them.

 

[Peter Graham]

Later conflicts yes, but all I've read on the battles of Stirling Bridge, Falkirk and Bannockburn suggest a massive English presence

I'm no expert on Wallace's battles, but I'm aware that the Scottish Wars of Independence were largely sparked by internal dissent in Scotland about who should be king. Perhaps unwisely, Longshanks was asked to intervene and he decided that Sir John Baliol was the man (he thought he could dangle Baliol on a string, for one thing). Baliol had supporters in Scotland as well as enemies, and although later history has attempted to paint the wars as being all the English on one side and all the Scots on the other, this simply isn't how it worked in practice.

You mention Bannockburn, which is a good example. The Bruce came from a Norman family who held enormous estates in both England and Scotland - I seem to recall (although I might be wrong) that his family held more land in Yorkshire than they did anywhere else. The name is actually De Brus, which tells you everything you need to know about the origins of the family.

Edward II was having a bad time of it down here. He didn't have his father's presence or authority and was not really a martial man, which was always a drawback for any medieval king. The Bruce naturally took advantage of English weakness and besieged Stirling. Although Edward was able to calm his realm for long enough to put an army in the field, that army had a significant Scottish element - the son of the Red Comyn fought for the English, as did the powerful Earl of Angus and some of the clans. The Bruce was no more universally popular with his countrymen than Edward was with his - some of the major "English" (a.k.a Norman and about as English as the chopstick) nobles failed to back their king.

But the grunts in each army (the levies with their scythes and longbows) were countrymen - English or Scottish peasants dragged into the war by their mail-clad, French speaking feudal lords. The English peasant was having a hard time of it at home and almost certainly did not include undying love for his liege lord in his own notion of what it meant to be English. Basically, he was a second class citizen in his own country and he knew it. You didn't join the army because you saw a spirited recruitment poster in the ale house exhorting you to stand up for Olde Englande against the pernicious Scot - you were there because the jug eared maniac who virtually owned you had decided that his career at court would be appropriately advanced by allowing you to face off against his Scottish opposite number several hundred miles away.

Regards,

Peter

 

[River Boy]

That doesn't really explain how English forces in those battles always significantly outnumbered the Scots, which seems to me representative of the different sized populations and available soldiery.

It would seem that Edward II had a less secure rule than his father, so his army for Bannockburn was taken from far and wide (I think I read there was a famous Middle East warrior found on the battlefield). But Edward I's armies, which he led to commit atrocities like that of Berwick, couldn't have been mostly Scot, accept perhaps from disputed border territories.

You're completely right about the Norman influences, both sides' nobles would have been speaking French.

 

[Peter Graham]

That doesn't really explain how English forces in those battles always significantly outnumbered the Scots,

They didn't - not always. You might be talking specifically about Wallace's battles (which I accept I know little about), but there were plenty of battles where the Scots (or those fighting under the Scottish banner) outnumbered the English (or those fighting under the English banner) - Solway Moss springs to mind. Basically, the invading army (whether they were heading north or south) would usually have the advantage of numbers.

It would seem that Edward II had a less secure rule than his father, so his army for Bannockburn was taken from far and wide

That's a bit of a non-sequitur. The weaker the king, the smaller the army he (or she) can put into the field. Both England and Scotland had to rely on the nobles to provide the bulk of the manpower. But for various reasons - historical, geographical, religious and political - the kings of England often found that rather easier than their Scottish counterparts.

But Edward I's armies, which he led to commit atrocities like that of Berwick, couldn't have been mostly Scot, accept perhaps from disputed border territories.

Alas! Atrocities happened as a matter of course - plunder and looting was seen as part of the reward and sometimes towns were surrendered purely on terms that there would be no sack. And there isn't much evidence that people minded despoiling their own, especially on the border - Scottish rieving clans raided other Scots as zealously as they raided the English and vice versa. A soft target was preferable to a nationalistic one.

But you might be right in Wallace's case. No-one is saying that in every case, the English armies had more Scottish soldiers than English ones. I can't speak for others, but the only point I seek to make is that to see these battles as clear-cut, patriotic struggles for the self detemination of an oppressed people is an acceptance of an (admittedly compelling) myth, rather than an assessment of historical fact.

Regards,

Peter

 

[Tirellan]

Someone I know has written a tremendously authoratative book on Wallace, published by Canongate
William Wallace: Amazon.co.uk: Peter Reese: Books

 

[Varangian]

Falkirk is described here a little incorrectly. The schiltrons were in fact square, not circular, and bearing in mind that the Welsh had recently been defeated, the 'English' army was full of Welsh bowmen, who, in Falkirk, were put to devastating use. All four schiltrons (there were four large Scottish schilstrons in the battle) came under very heavy arrow fire which decimated the Scottish ranks before the cavalry and infantry closed with the Scottish.

However, I may be biased, but I view Wallace as a hero who stood up for that in which he believed and because of he and the likes of him (such as The Bruce, who was a bit wayward in the beginning, but eventually led the army which destroyed the English army in 1314 ad at Bannockburn) Scotland enjoyed relative peace up until the Jacobites.

 

[Peter Graham]

However, I may be biased, but I view Wallace as a hero who stood up for that in which he believed and because of he and the likes of him (such as The Bruce, who was a bit wayward in the beginning, but eventually led the army which destroyed the English army in 1314 ad at Bannockburn)

Might I ask whether you think this because you are attracted by the Hollywood-esque myth of Wallace as a humble Scottish hero with a blue face fighting the wicked English oppressors, or because you have studied the period a bit and have a historically sound theory about his motivations? If the latter - let's hear it! If the former, then perhaps you are a little biased. As I said earlier, Wallace and Bruce were both effectively Norman French aristocrats. Braveheart is, to my mind, a waste of celluloid, but there's no doubting that it tapped into a strong myth about Scottish nationhood which far too many folk accept uncritically as being accurate.

Scotland enjoyed relative peace up until the Jacobites.

"Relative" is the key word here. Scotland suffered two of her biggest military defeats in this period of relative peace - Flodden and Solway Moss - and throughout, the border was in a state of perpetual and endemic violence which occasionally erupted into full blown war. The Stuarts were endlessly hampered by rebellious and unruly Highlanders, rebellious and unruly borderers and by their own staggering ineptitude. All of this was made worse by endless French interference in Scottish affairs and the fact that like it or not, both England and Scotland were all too often pawns in a game being played by people who were neither English nor Scottish.

Regards,

Peter

 

[The Ace]

There was constant border warfare during the Bruce/Stewart dynasties, probably part of the explanation of Scotland's poverty.

I have studied the history of the period, and see Wallace as a hero, ably succeeded by Robert I and a gradual decline during the reigns of David II and the Stewarts.

Wallace's murder galvanised Bruce into seizing the throne, crushing internal opposition and giving his heirs a strong, united Scotland, which they proceeded to p*ss away.

Wallace lost at Falkirk because the Scottish nobility ( among the finest light cavalry in Europe) deserted him, nobody dared to treat Bruce the same way.

Sir William Wallace was a hero and a patriot, deserted by a spineless bunch who gave him power but cr*pped themselves every time he tried to exercise it in case it offended an enemy they hadn't the guts to face.

 

[Abernovo]

Sir William Wallace was a hero and a patriot, deserted by a spineless bunch who gave him power but cr*pped themselves every time he tried to exercise it in case it offended an enemy they hadn't the guts to face.

Couldn't agree more. A hero and a patriot. Maybe I'm biased, having walked past his statue in Aberdeen so many times, but I've also read my history. He galvanised the resistance to Edward's domination at a time when most of the senior nobles were weak, interested only in their own petty rivalries and scrabbling for scraps from the master's table.

As to 'execution' for treason, as he was recorded as saying at the time, he swore no oath to the English crown, so could not act treasonously against it.