The wars of independence-the facts.

[ANDY-J]

Scotland's mediaeval feudal society was highly structured and men were governed by obligations of honour and kinship which sometimes although not always took precedence over patriotic ideals.This was especially true amongst the the high nobility to which Bruce belonged.Many Scottish nobles held land in England and many English nobles held land in both Scotland and France.These men belonged to a warrior caste,owed fealty to more than one king and shared a system of values which set them above and apart from the vast majority of their compatriots.An example is the Scottish Knight Ingram de Umfraville.He was a signatory to the declaration of Arbroath and former guardian of the realm of Scotland-yet he fought for the English at Bannockburn.The reason for this is that he was related to the murdered John Comyn.Many of Comyn's kinsmen were Scots yet they fought for the English indicating that ties of kinship counted for more than patriotism,at least among the social elite.(The day after the battle Ingram de Umfraville surrendered to Bruce and was immediately set free without ransom-an indication of Bruce's sense of humanity).
Scotland at this time was an agrarian society and the vast majority of poor tenant farmers were uneducated and would often travel no further than their nearest town in their lifetime.I would question to what extent such people could have any real conception of Scottishness.Feudalism had a tendency to create a decentralised state and often local loyalties took precedence over national loyalties.What is certain is that the wars of independence fundamentally changed the nature of Scots society and helped to sow the seeds of a unified national identity.The nobility after indepence could no longer owe fealty to two kings-there was no more ambiguity as to where their loyalties lay.The irony is that in attempting to subdue Scotland the English only served to unite the many diverse elements of Scottish society into a cohesive opposition.I don't accept that prior to the wars of independence there was any real sense of unity amongst the Scots however I do accept that after independence was achieved such a sense of Scottishness did begin to emerge.Whether it would have done so if the English had not attempted to conquer Scotland is another matter.

I am not saying Andy is guilty of what I am about to post (in fact he is careful to point out a few things which escape many people) so please don't take this as an attack on what Andy has written.

For many centuries there have been efforts to obliterate Scotland and part of the effort has been to denigrate Scotland's history. Edward Longshanks deliberately removed and destroyed public records when he invaded Scotland as a means of removing the evidence of Scotland's past and strengthening his assertions of Scotland's lowly status compared to England's. Historians ever since have had to struggle with this lack of documentary evidence. Many just ignore it and take the attitude that there are no records, therefore Scotland is/was insignificant. There are records, they're just harder to find and less abundant than they should be.

There has long been a fashion among Unionist academics of downplaying Scotland's nationhood. Claims are often bandied about that Scots felt no national identity before some date or other. Often the magic date of 1707 (all hail to the great UNION!) is used as a cut-off as if Scotland only became a nation at the very time she actually ceased to be a nation! Scotland was not less united than comparable nations of the same period and was often far more united that others. England was riven by civil wars and aristocratic disputes throughout the centuries while Scotland was relatively calm and unified. Same goes for France, and many current European nations simply didn't exist while Scotland was recognisably Scotland.

The swearing of fealty by Scottish nobles and kings to a foreign king is often cited as evidence of the disloyalty or lack of national feeling of the nobles and kings. Somehow the swearing of fealty to the king of France by large numbers of English nobles and kings for their lands in France is always overlooked in the rush to point out the disloyalty of those rascally Scots. Fealty was a common feudal device used to ensure loyalty. Oaths of fealty were always given in exchange for specific estates and did not extend beyond them. English nobles of Norman descent (including kings) swore oaths in exchange for their French estates, as did Scots nobles of Norman descent. Scots nobles swore oaths in exchange for their English estates. English nobles with Scottish estates swore oaths of fealty to the King of Scots. Much is made of King John Baliol swearing fealty to Edward of England, but nothing is made of him swearing oaths to the King of France for his extensive French estates.

All this betrays a concerted effort to downplay Scotland, her nationhood and her independence. Why? To reduce Scotland to a poor dependent region with no sense of self-worth.

In times of peace Scotland was a powerful trading nation whose three largest seaports generated more customs revenue than all the ports of England. We never learn this in our schools. Why? The Unionists can never have us believing we can make it alone and possibly even do better than our partners (and alleged benefactors) in Union.

I say let's put an end to this Unionist propaganda. If someone must write that at such-and-such a time Scotland was divided, let them also write that no European nation was less divided at the time!

[Milva]

I am from Poland. My knowledge about medieval Scotland maybe is not large, but is large enough to say that the only so determined and warrior nation like the Scots, is the Polish one. Bannockburn was one of the most important battles in Europe, I can compare it only to our the battle of Grunwald (1410). And the Declaration of Arbroath is the first written declaration of patriotism after Welsh 13th. century poetry. I wish you the full independence. I hope that your Parliament is the "freedom to get freedom", as Michael Collins once said. Because Freedom is a noble thing !...
Nota bene, if you could help me to understand early medieval Scotland (Dalriada, Cinaed mac Alpin and his successors) - mail me!

[Eochaid39]

I, being a descendant of Edward I "Longshanks" and William the Lion of Scotland, would jusyt like to state how unfair you are being to the English Monarch and also Robert the Bruce.
If it where not for the Scots making fun of Longshanks about his longshanks he never would have been known as the "Hammer of the Scots." I also believe that you are underestimating the military genius of Longshanks. Robert the Bruce said this on Edward II, but I think it will convey the meaning that I want it to convey. "...I am more afraid of the father dead than the son living. It is easier to gain a whole country from the son that a foot of ground from the father."

Also Bruce, he came from a family of warrior. He lineage goes back through the Earls of the Orkneys back to Turf Einar and then back to Rongvald I "The Wise". He knew how to work things politically and was so knowledgable about warfare that he posed a great threat to anyone that stood in his way. But being as "humble" as he was he just wanted "freedom" from the English "Tyranny". As it was stated above on an earlier post, Bruce was known as the True Braveheart, and not Wallace, maybe we should not take these movies that are out to be historically correct.

I will close with this one last thing, it was mentioned in an earlier post that Wallace was known as the "Hammer of the English." I would like to know where the postee found the info to call Wallace that. Wallace was just an outlaw, saying that he was fighting for the common good, the English killed is wife, so he wanted to get revenge. But still we must remember the fact that Wallace got his ass kicked at Falkirk, and Bruce won at Bannockburn. Maybe this shows who should be getting the real credit for the Scots freedom and who should just be remembered as an outlaw.

[ANDY-J]

Eochaid39,
I wouldn't dispute that Wallace was an outlaw and if contemporary accounts are to be believed he was a particularly brutal and savage man.The mediaeval period however was characterised by cruelty and inhumanity and Wallace was probably no more unscrupulous than anybody else,although it wasn't normal practice to flay the skin off a defeated adversaries back and use it for a belt.The fact that Wallace erected a gibbet in every Scottish town to remind Scots where their loyalties lay indicates that he was ruthless and determined and I think he should be seen not only as a Scottish freedom fighter but as an egalitarian.He was a man who was willing to lay down his life for his principles and fight against tyranny in an era when most men(including Bruce) were concerned with their own ambitions.

The epithet "Hammer of the Scots" was only ever applied to Edward posthumously, never in his lifetime.

You can't seriously be suggesting that Edward visited all the misery he did on Scotland because the Scots made fun of his stature can you? If you are, you are the one who underestimates Longshanks.

Wallace is conspicuous for never having bent his knee to Edward. It was this example of never surrendering and never giving up the cause which inspired those who followed him. Had Wallace given up the fight during the dark years between 1296 and 1305 there's no saying that Scotland would ever have been free. Wallace gave the Scots heart. He was an outlaw, but only in the strictest legal sense of being outwith the King's Peace. The peace of a king he did not recognise and who had no legal right to administer the peace within the realm of Scotland.

Bruce won at Bannockburn. Wallace won at Stirling Bridge, and if he hadn't there may never have been a Bannockburn. Wallace lost at Falkirk largely due to his cavalry deserting the field before the enemy was engaged. The aristocracy from whom you claim descent could not bring themselves to accept the orders of a "lesser" man like Wallace and would sooner see their countrymen slaughtered than place themselves under his command.

Bruce was a military genius but many of his methods were pioneered by Wallace; Wallace developed the scorched earth policy which denied the enemy supplies, Wallace started the guerrilla-style campaign which Bruce used to devastating effect, Wallace invented the shiltroms which won the day at Bannockburn.

[KevinBarclay-Jay]

it was mentioned earlier that "the longshank" if properly supported would undoubtadly taken Scotland. It is also mentioned that he took just six years to take Wales.

For those that don't know Wales is the least populated ot the United Kingdom(sic)..Longshags had the full support of the entire nation of England (Wales id only 100 miles form London). He only managed to kill Llewelyn the Welsh King by luck in an Ambush and this small nation held out for Six years against the conqueror of a lot of Europe.

LOngshanks was undoubatable a great soldier on the European fron but had no great idea about how to deal with trouble on his own doorstep.

William Wallace was only an outlaw to the English and those that supported them. His reported action can only be looked at in hindsite and have provided the backbone for resistance to the Old Enemy for many hundreds of years whether the stories are true or not.