Higher history revision notes - scottish wars of independence

HIGHER HISTORY
REVISION NOTES
The Scottish Wars
of Independence
1249–1328

of 48
The Scottish Wars of Independence, 1249–1328
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 risk of
civil war breaking out amongst 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.
Contents
Background information Page 3
The reign of Alexander III Page 4
Scotland 1286-1296: Succession problem and the Great Cause
 Overview Page 5
 Events Page 6
 Key figures Pages 10-11
 Historical debate Pages 12-13
John Balliol and Edward I
 Overview Page 15
 Events Pages 16-18
 Key figures Page 19
 Primary sources Page 22
William Wallace and Scottish resistance
Rise and triumph of Robert the Bruce
 Primary sources Page 48

of 48
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 Scottish 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.
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.

of 48
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 Scottish
nobles and Alexander got rid of him with help from King Henry III of England.
In 1251, Alexander married Margaret, Henry III’s daughter, creating close ties with his
southern neighbour. Henry awarded Alexander lands in England as a wedding gift, and
the Scottish king agreed to Henry III being 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 made 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 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. 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 struck 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 seized 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.

of 48
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 crisis 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
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.

of 48
Events
The death of Alexander III (March 1286)
The death of Alexander III’s son and heir in 1284 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 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 mortality 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 necessary 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 together 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

of 48
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 King 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 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 point 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.

of 48
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.
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 help 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.
This is known as the Award of Norham.
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.

of 48
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.

of 48
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.
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, Alexander 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 1286–1290)
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
hoped 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 warrior, 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?

of 48
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’ 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 independence 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 that 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 times 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. There 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.

of 48
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 Largs 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 Scone, 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.’
How important is the idea of the Community of the 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 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.
However 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 notable achievement for them to have held the
kingdom together in the name of a three-year-old.

of 48
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.’ 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’. 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.
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 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 argue 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 despite
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, 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 credence 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 know that Edward had written to all English monasteries asking them to search their
records for any written reference or justification for England’s overlordship to Scotland,

of 48
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. Most historians agree that Edward,
who was on friendly terms with Alexander III, saw this as his opportunity to take
advantage 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. 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 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 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 the first to swear an oath of fealty to Edward.

of 48
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 Rolls
as a symbol of their homage to Edward I.

of 48
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.
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 was 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 was 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 system 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 unfavourable 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

of 48
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 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
example 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 when 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
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

of 48
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 English.
 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 rolls
By late August almost 1600 leading Scottish nobles and burgesses swore a personal oath
to King Edward. This was collectively known as the ‘Ragman rolls’. 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
ground. John would subsequently be known as Toom Tabard or ‘empty coat’.
During this invasion, King Edward also removed other items from Scotland. He took
government papers, the Stone of Destiny and holy relics.

of 48
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.
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.
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-in-command, 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 that
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.

of 48
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.
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.

of 48
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 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 military 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.

of 48
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 Patrick 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 name, 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 rolls
The Ragman rolls 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
evidence for this. Historians such as Fiona Watson argue that he was simply not
important enough for his seal to have been sought.

of 48
William Wallace and Scottish resistance
Overview
Following the capitulation of Scotland in 1296, Edward was keen to maintain his
authority, and any prominent Scot whose seal failed to appear on the ‘Ragman rolls’ 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 argues, the conquest of 1296 had likely resulted in only a handful of
leading Scots resigning themselves to a permanent English occupation, given 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 the 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,
Wallace was stripped and dragged by horses through the streets, after which he was
hanged, drawn and quartered, and his dismembered body parts were sent to five different
cities for display as a reminder of Edward’s wrath.

of 48
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 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,
including 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 yet 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 Murray 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, Nairn 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

of 48
Angus and towns of Dundee and Perth. It was there that he learned of Wallace’s rebellion
and the two met for 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 goings 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.
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.

of 48
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 longer 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 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.
Continuing Scottish resistance
With the resignation of William Wallace after the Battle of Falkirk, Scottish resistance to
Edward I continued under 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

of 48
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. 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 join 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 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 winter. 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. 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.

of 48
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 famous, if somewhat misleading
film and countless books, his name has become 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 III 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 describes 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 rolls. 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.

of 48
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 at 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 had
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.
Cressingham was both rich and lazy, but in the Welsh wars he had proven that he was a
reasonably able soldier. Nevertheless, his performance 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.

of 48
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.

of 48
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 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 Stirling. 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.

of 48
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.
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 power 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 his 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 of 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.
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.

of 48
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, hanged 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 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 take shape and develop. At the time the
reaction was a more muted acceptance of the inevitable guilty verdict of an outlaw.

of 48
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 all 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 Edward II by his wife, Isabella, there came the
Treaty of Edinburgh, recognising Scotland, and her king, as entirely independent of
England.

of 48
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.
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

of 48
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). Bruce all but fell 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
frailer. 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 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 with 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 just 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 death-bed, 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

of 48
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 growing 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).
Robert’s policy of destroying all castles that he captured meant that they 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 abandoned. 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 back 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.

Higher history revision notes - scottish wars of independence

Higher history revision notes - scottish wars of independence

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Higher history revision notes - scottish wars of independence

Similar to Higher history revision notes - scottish wars of independence (20)

More from mrmarr

More from mrmarr (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Higher history revision notes - scottish wars of independence