William Wallace: Hero or Fool?

[The Ace]

I know little about this particular conflict, but there was no English Army until Cromwell's New Model Army. You had mercenaries, who were fighting for cash rather than for King and country. Their allegiance was only to the particular Lord that was paying them, and it stands to reason that they would be recruited locally, or as locally as possible. We forget how vast the distances were in those days because today we can make a weeks journey in a matter of hours.

The King'd raise an army at need by calling on his vassals. Medieval armies had little in common with modern ones, but they were made up of men summoned by the king. There were mercenary companies, of course, but kings found patriotism cheaper.

There were Scots in the English army at Stirling Bridge (including the future Robert I) who either owned land in England, saw an eye for the main chance, or just didn't support Wallace.


Medieval armies dispersed at the end of the campaigning season or when the grub ran out, rather than being a permanent feature like modern ones, but they were organised by the nobility calling their own men to support them, often at the behest of a higher noble or the sovereign.

 

[Peter Graham]

I know little about this particular conflict, but there was no English Army until Cromwell's New Model Army. You had mercenaries, who were fighting for cash rather than for King and country. Their allegiance was only to the particular Lord that was paying them,

Ace is quite right. The whole point of feudalism was to ensure that there were clear lines of delegated responsibility - and so a reduced need for everything to be operated centrally.

If England wanted to go to war with Scotland (or vice versa), the King would send out a call to his vassals to provide men and equipment. The vassals sent out a call to their vassals and so on, until you have an army in the field. It's a bit like bookies laying on bets - as Earl of Westmorland, I might have to provide so many men and so much gear. But, in turn, I have my own vassals, so I get them to provide as much of it as possible.

This is one reason why a simplistic nationalist interpretation of the Anglo-Scottish wars falls down. The King of England and Big Chunks Of France regarded the King of Scotland as his vassal. Many Scottish nobles came from the same stock as their opposite numbers south of the border (in other words, they held their land from William I or from henchmen of William I who were trying to set up a feudal system in those parts of the mainland where the Normans had not penetrated in the immediate aftermath of 1066). So, it wasn't that Edward wanted to rule Scotland directly - he just wanted to ensure that whoever did rule it would do so as his vassal.

This is why Scots are said to have fought on the "English" side. What this really means is that Edward raised an army from amongst his vassals, who could live or hold lands anywhere - including Scotland and France. But because most of his vassals held land in England, it followed that the rank and file who they in turn would oblige to show up would be largely English.

Regards,

Peter

 

[The Ace]

And at the bottom, you'd have an English army composed of Englishmen (and Welsh), and a Scottish army of Scotsmen.

The Normans generally wiped out the Celtic or Saxon Nobility and replaced them. There were never enough Normans to replace the population entirely.

 

[paranoid marvin]

I guess for most of the serfs who fought in these conflicts it didn't really matter whether the noble oppressing them spoke with Scottish, English or French accent; whatever the outcome of the battle (if they were lucky enough to survive), it would be back to trying to survive off the land whilst giving the majority of what you made to whoever was in charge.

 

[Dave]

Okay, but hypothetically speaking, wouldn't an army raised in Sussex, for example, have much higher overheads than one raised in say Roxburghshire? You'd need to feed both the men, and the horses to transport all their gear, for an awfully long time before they did any actual fighting. Or, was that never a problem - did an army on the move just confiscate whatever they needed without a question being raised?

 

[The Ace]

The king commanded that his army be supplied. The nobility tended to make local arrangements as they passed through friendly territory. In hostile territory, of course, soldiers just took what they wanted,

 

[Peter Graham]

Okay, but hypothetically speaking, wouldn't an army raised in Sussex, for example, have much higher overheads than one raised in say Roxburghshire?

Absolutely right, Dave. I don't know about the earlier Middle Ages, but later on, English armies heading for Scotland contained disproportionate numbers of men from the northern - and specifically the border - counties. The small English army which defeated the Scots at Solway Moss was made up almost entirely of Cumberland men.

Scottish armies heading south also contained lots of Borderers.

This occasionally caused problems for the commanders of both sides. The borderers were frequently related and/or at states of feud with one another and the records show that considerations of patriotism ranked well down the scale. Both English and Scottish borderers were notoriously ready to change sides if it looked like they had picked the losing team.

Regards,

Peter

 

[Peter Graham]

Hi Ace

And at the bottom, you'd have an English army composed of Englishmen (and Welsh), and a Scottish army of Scotsmen.

Plus foreign mercenaries and levies from overseas territories. Numerically, you might be right, but that isn't the point I'm making. My issue is with seeing the wars of the Edwards, Wallace and De Brus as a simple, nationalist struggle between England and Scotland in which the noble Scots fight for FREEDOM from the hated English oppressors. They were no such thing. And, of course, those at the bottom rarely have much choice about where they are sent or what they have to do when they get there.

There were never enough Normans to replace the population entirely.

There didn't need to be. They just took over at the top. And there were enough of them to replace the previous English aristocracy (made up of a genetic soup of Angle, Saxon, Norseman and Welshman) and also the lowland Scottish aristocracy (made up of a genetic soup of Welshman, Angle, Norseman, Irishman and Pict).

Regards,

Peter

 

[Brian G Turner]

There didn't need to be. They just took over at the top.

Which is reflected in our language - English words for animals tend to be Germanic in origin, while the food from these animals served to the lords tend to be French - a point that may or may not have been raised earlier in this thread but thought worth recounting on.

 

[AnyaKimlin]

Which is reflected in our language - English words for animals tend to be Germanic in origin, while the food from these animals served to the lords tend to be French - a point that may or may not have been raised earlier in this thread but thought worth recounting on.

The Scots words I think are Germanic as well aren't they ? Puddock, Todd, Brock, Maukin, Mowie, Baudrons etc (I am sure in a cold desperate winter most of them ended up in the stew pot - especially given the Viking heritage in parts of Scotland) Which are probably what William Wallace would have used.

For that matter Malkin was the Lancastrian word for Hare, along with Brock and Todd (the obvious Badger and Fox) in Yorkshire.

 

[Peter Graham]

The Scots words I think are Germanic as well aren't they ? Puddock, Todd, Brock, Maukin, Mowie, Baudrons etc

Scots is lovely on the ear, but it's a dialect of English rather than a language in its own right. As such, the majority of the vocabulary is made up of English words, many of which are, as you rightly say, Germanic in origin.

There is considerable overlap with the dialects of northern England - many supposedly "Scottish" words (such as "bairn", "lass" and "ken") are also used south of the border.

Which are probably what William Wallace would have used.

He might've done. But as a member of a Norman family who came over with the Conqueror and who still held land and power, I think he'd also have spoken French.

Regards,

Peter

 

[AnyaKimlin]

Scots is lovely on the ear, but it's a dialect of English rather than a language in its own right. As such, the majority of the vocabulary is made up of English words, many of which are, as you rightly say, Germanic in origin.
#r

That is disputed whether, because it contains its own dialects, it is actually a language. Academics don't seem to agree whether it is a dialect or a language with similarities like Danish, Swedish, Norweigian etc It is more a dialect of Middle English than one of Modern English. Certainly a broad Doric speaker can produce sentences before a recognisable modern English word appears.

So little is known about William Wallace even his birthplace I seem to remember from history at school was under dispute. I know my history teacher called him an interfering Frenchman, but his father was one of two men. He may have had brothers. He may or may not have descendants etc All we actually know is he fought wars and then was hung, drawn and quartered.

We know a bit more about this character, and we might know more if Elgin/Moray records kept their archives in something more glamourous than shoeboxes is damp cellars:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Moray#Attack_on_Castle_Urquhart

One local legend is the castle was dismantled to prevent King Edward visiting lol It is now just a very small wall.

 

[Peter Graham]

That is disputed whether, because it contains its own dialects, it is actually a language.

The dispute appears to have gathered pace in recent years.

I can fully accept that a dialect might get to the point that it is, to all intents and purposes, a separate language. However, I'd argue that Scots never got to that point. At heart, it is a dialect (or a collection of dialects) shared in no small measure with the dialects of northern England. All have a hefty influx of West and North Germanic words.

Although there are differences between the various dialects, at root they are all variants of English and are (by and large) intelligible to other English speakers. The north of England contains numerous dialects gathered under a broad aegis of Oop North Talk, yet no one would argue that Northern English is a separate language. Both Scots and Northern English are convenient terms for what are effectively sub groups of dialects of the English language.

Certainly a broad Doric speaker can produce sentences before a recognisable modern English word appears.

Really? I'd love to hear one!

Cumbrians can do this too - the (in)famous "hasta sin a cuddy lowp a yett?" being the obvious example.

We know a bit more about this character, and we might know more if Elgin/Moray records kept their archives in something more glamourous than shoeboxes is damp cellars:

Good point!

Regards,

Peter

 

[AnyaKimlin]

The dispute appears to have gathered pace in recent years.

I can fully accept that a dialect might get to the point that it is, to all intents and purposes, a separate language. However, I'd argue that Scots never got to that point. At heart, it is a dialect (or a collection of dialects) shared in no small measure with the dialects of northern England. All have a hefty influx of West and North Germanic words.

It depends where you are in Scotland how it sounds and how heavy the Norse influence is. Although it doesn't really matter either way - it is closer to Middle English though because it spent so much time being suppressed it was more important for it not to evolve.

It is referred to as the Scots Language in schools though and taught as such in some.

The biggest problem with Scottish history is the area I live in Morayshire for much of Scotland's history it was a major player (the Macbeth Witches were executed about 3 miles from where I live) - in someways Elgin was the second city. Even in the 1800s its silver and goldsmiths were reknowned, it had early railway, and what is possibly the UKs first purpose built museum which is stocked full of riches some of which the British Museum doesn't have These days its main town has a population of around 25,000 and that is 8,000 more than it was in the 1990s.

Early records of the Cathedral were lost in a fire in late 13th Century. Then the Wolf of Badenoch burned the place in I think 1390 losing more records. The reformation put paid to a lot more of them.

The records are in a shambolic state as I said some of the older records are in something along the lines of a shoebox and not together in an archive.

Basically what does survive of the areas records much is not properly catalogued. Without it William Wallace and Scottish history is probably more of a mystery than it need be.

One interesting thought the first fire at the cathedral was about the time William Wallace would have been born - his birthplace and date has never been confirmed.

 

[Dave]

There is considerable overlap with the dialects of northern England - many supposedly "Scottish" words (such as "bairn", "lass" and "ken") are also used south of the border.

And I think you will find if you dig deeper that those words have a Viking or Northern European influence also:

Bairn: Swedish barn (“child”), Icelandic barn (“child”)

The Geordie "gannin hyem": German Heim, Swedish hem, Dutch heem and heim-. Not derived from Old Norse, as is sometimes assumed on the basis of Danish and Norwegian hjem.