Re: Why is William Wallace so legendary?


kenney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
In article
<1144329609.432618.320170@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
am05@xxxxxxxxxxx () wrote:

genius but the fact remains that his generalship at Falkirk
_was_ inept. A brilliant guerilla leader is not always a good
field general.

During his initial campaign and as late as Stirling he had been
assisted by one Andrew Morray. Morray seems to have vanished by
Stirling.

AFAIK, he died from the wounds he received at Stirling. Which leaves a
question: to which degree WW's military success was his own? BTW,
wasn't
Moray (Sir Andrew de Moray) an aristocrat? Or at least from a
high-placed family?

There is also the point that by becoming Guardian
Wallace had annoyed the Scots aristos.

Probably Bruce being prominent among the annoyed. However, IIRC, he was
posing
as a loyalist of John Baliol, which means that Baliol's faction should
support him at
least up to a certain degree. With some political skills (which he did
not necessarily
posessed) he could built a support base just on a principle "I'm enemy
of your
enemies". With a great skill, he could probably achieve some support
from all
factions by being a balancing factor. After all, it looks like he
managed to get a
strong support base of his own (people's militia), which could be used
as a political
tool.


Most accounts of Falkirk I
have read accuse the nobility (Earl of Angus) of treason.

From http://members.aol.com/skyewrites/falkirk1.html (have no clue
about site's
credibility):
"Eight earls, two of them his [Edward's] kinsmen and one Scot of Angus,
rode behind him with their knights and tenants." If true, Angus was not
in WW's army and 'treason'
does not mean a betrayal on a battlefield.

Interesting piece is that Ed's army had serious problems:
"As this mighty force moved northward by Roxburgh and Lauderdale,
skirting Edinburgh toward the Stirling plain, swallowing lonely castles
and digesting their burnt stones, it was less powerful than it might
have seemed to the watching Scots on the hills. It was hungry. The
fleet that should have provisioned it had been delayed by weather. It
was undisciplined. Welsh archers quarrelled viciously with Gasons, and
sickness raddled its splendid chivalry. At Kirkliston, near Linlithgow,
Edward decided to fall back on Edinburgh, where he might calm and feed
his mutinous men."
The same situation that Bruce was facing later and which he could turn
to his
advantage by making English supply problems even worse. The powerful
invading
armies had been falling apart due to logistics (and cash problems) and
Bruce remained
a winner.

Now, this site gives Ed's army as 12,500 foot and 2,500 horse. WW's
army is
8,000 - 10,000. Taking into an account that mercenary infantry was of a
questionable
quality (and, except for the archers, did not play any significant role
in the battle) and
that, OTOH, Scottish infantry demonstrated very high quality at
Falkirk, the forces
were not complately out of sync.

"Provisions became scarce in Edward's camp at Kirkliston and the fleet
from Berwick was anxiously looked for. The surrounding country, having
been many times wasted by fire and sword (by Wallace), had English
soldiers complaining bitterly of their scanty provender, and a change
of quarters was contemplated. Only a small supply was received as the
great body of the fleet was still being detained by adverse winds. A
dangerous mutiny broke out in the English ranks. Under his banner
Edward had vast numbers of Welsh bowmen, led by their chiefs, whom he
had recently subjected to his stern sway. The famine was allowed, to be
pressed hardest on the Welsh before the English. A supply of wine sent
to them brought on a crisis and during the ride north. Edwards new
Welsh archers, got into a killing fight with the English soldiers,
which nearly broke up the whole invasion force in a sudden paroxysm of
national antipathy. The Welsh turned upon the English in their tents at
night. Edward's trumpets sounded promptly to horse, and charging the
Welsh he slew more than eighty of them, and eventually restored order.
Exasperated and sullen, the Welsh chietains now openly threatened to
join Wallace."

Looks like WW moved to the battle too fast on a wrong assumption that
Ed's army
is already falling apart. And he did not bother to choose a secure
position: there was
some 'marshland' at his front but it did not have a serious deterring
effect and the
English had been able to attack from the flanks and rear.

Interestingly enough, "English Master of the Templars rushed too
recklessly on the spear forest, flailing madly with his sword, hoping
to break it with animal strength. He and his five retainers were
impaled". You could always trust a Templar to find a way to be
moronically killed. :-)

According to this site, which more or less followes a traditional
perception,
'betrayal' happened only _after_ Ed deployed the Welsh archers:
John Comyn withdrew his troops, leaving "Wallace and his Scots in a
terrible predicament. Now they had no way to impede the Welsh archers
by chasing them off with cavalry. They were sitting ducks."

It is not surprising (taking into an account relations between Comyn
and Bruce and the
fact that Bruce won, etc.) that everything is blamed on Comyn. However,
judging by
the description given, some things are obvious:

(a) WW was in a deep s--t even before this withdrawl happened. He
should order
either an attack or withdrawl but to stay passively under enemy's fire
was a pure
stupidity. He himself made his troops sitting ducks and the only thing
which can be
said about Comyn's alledged behavior is that he demonstrated at least
some generalship
and a common sense by saving troops under his command instead of
letting them
to be slaughtered without any purpose.

(b) The Comyn's troops being 'mostly light horse and infantry', it is
quite possible that
this light cavalry was simply chased off the field by the heavier and
more numerous
English cavalry.

(c) The small numbers of a light cavalry would change nothing in this
schema of
battle unless English archers were left absolutely unprotected (as at
Bannockburn).

Even this site concedes: "More probable is that Comyn and many Scots
nobles, already jealous of Wallace's success and popularity with the
Scottish commoners, simply felt the odds were to great and rode off."
The important thing is that they did not rode off _before_ the battle.
They were either
chased off the battlefield or run away when situation became hopeless
due to the
inept leadership of the People's Hero.

"It couldn't have been worse timing for the Scots and Wallace, for now
nothing stood between Edwards deadly arrows and the immovable Scottish
schiltrons."

And what would stood betwen them otherwise? A light cavalry? It is not
even funny,
just plain stupid.

"He [WW] did all a brave man could do: inspire his men, fighting in the
front ranks with his large two-handed sword." Ordering an immediate
retreat would be less heroic and
probably less inspiring but his troops would survive to fight another
battle.

Now, the fun with this site starts.

"Wallace escaped, riding northward to Callander and the mountains."

But a little bit down the text:

"...long and bravely did Wallace maintain the field;
[to which purpose? just to have more of his people killed?]

and not until the sun was setting did he begin his perilous retreat

[why didn't he start it when situation did not deterriorate?]

by crossing the Carron, near the old Roman ruins, where there was a
ford when the tide was low
[why didn't he tool a position _behind_ this river instead of having it
at his rear?] .

...Wallace's own horse, covered with wounds and stuck full of
spear-heads and arrows, was only able to bear him across the river,
when it sank beneath him and died. He continued to fight his was way on
foot towards Perth, accompanied by 300 chosen men."

Two versions look quite different.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Get real FFS!
    ... today's Scots and Welsh are purely the descendants of English colonists? ... Following on from the battle of Culloden many English soldiers took up the ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: Cumbric
    ... > have entered the vocabulary of Standard English. ... > Cumbric and Welsh, but there is one important difference in that Cumbric ... > Cairndinnis: Scot., near Dunplelder, cf.W. ... > The word cal has acquired a new meaning in Welsh and Cornish, ...
    (uk.local.cumbria)
  • Re: Dedruggio thinking about coming back to save England.
    ... Let's wait for the new dawn of Welsh rugby shall we? ... And as to the English only playing a kicking game...nice to see Henson doing ... >> Henson and Williams only played in one Test. ...
    (rec.sport.rugby.union)
  • Re: OT height
    ... people I've ever met have been Welsh people living in Welsh-speaking ... around* (and hassled the kids for failing to switch to English when I ... I really don't like racist bigotry - and I happen to be English. ... turns out that while the English are not the only group to suffer racist ...
    (uk.comp.sys.mac)
  • Re: Dedruggio thinking about coming back to save England.
    ... William Clark wrote: ... >>> English, there is no chance of the kind of unity a tour party needs to ... It has happened before with the Welsh, ... In 2001 it was english players causing the trouble. ...
    (rec.sport.rugby.union)
Loading