In the Footsteps of William Wallace

by Alan Young

  The young Andrew Moray soon recaptured the English-held castles in the north, including Inverness, Urquhart, Banff, Elgin and Aberdeen between May and mid-July 1297. This area had been very much under Comyn influence and it is worth noting the family relationship by marriage between the Morays and the Comyns. Both Morays and Macdougalls were part of the Comyn patronage system. Evidence from letters to Edward I from northern Scotland indicate that Andrew Moray soon acquired popular support in the region. He had ‘a very large body of rogues’ and this army of foot soldiers fought ‘guerrilla-type’ warfare as ‘they betook themselves into a very great strong-hold of bog and wood, where no horsemen could be of service’.

  Elgin Cathedral. Andrew Moray recaptured a series of English-held castles in northern Scotland during the summer of 1297. These included Urquhart, Banff, Elgin and Aberdeen. Elgin Cathedral, regarded as one of the most beautiful Scottish cathedrals, was founded in 1224 as the seat of the bishopric of Moray. Much of the structure dates from the thirteenth century.

  Rather more attention has been paid to the rebellion in the south of Scotland, which involved two apparently separate risings. One was led by James Stewart, Bishop Wishart and Robert Bruce, and is generally seen as an aristocratic revolt, and the other was organised by William Wallace, and is usually viewed as a ‘spontaneous act of middling and common folk’(A.A.M. Duncan, ‘The Community of the Realm of Scotland and Robert Bruce’, Scottish Historical Review XLV [1966]). Too much contrast has been made between the ‘official’ revolt of Bishop Wishart and James Stewart (who were joined by the young Robert Bruce) and the ‘popular’ revolt of William Wallace. The Lanercost chronicler thought that the rising was planned and instigated by Wishart and Stewart who

  . . . caused a certain bloody man, William Wallace, who had formerly been a chief of brigands in Scotland to revolt against the king and assemble the people in revolt . . .

  It seems, however, that Wallace’s rebellion had already started by early May at the latest. The active involvement of Wishart and Stewart may have been provoked by Edward I’s demand for over fifty Scottish nobles to give military service overseas in his campaign in Flanders. This summons was issued on 24 May and it is unlikely that they came out in open revolt before then.

  William Wallace’s first action on historical record, as has been mentioned, was the assault and murder of the English Sheriff of Lanark, William Heselrigg. The Sheriff was apparently at Lanark holding a local court at the time of the attack. Most information about the incident comes from the fourteenth-century Scalacronica of Thomas Gray, whose father was an eyewitness to events.

  The said William Wallace came by night upon the said sheriff and surprised him, when Thomas de Gray [father of the chronicler] who was at that time in the suite of the said sheriff, was left stripped for dead in the mellay when the English were defending themselves. The said Thomas lay all night naked between two burning houses which the Scots had set on fire, whereof the heat kept life in him, until he was recognised at daybreak and carried off by William of Lundy, who caused him to be restored to health.

  Monkton church, Ayrshire. This is where a priest, according to Blind Harry’s narrative, interpreted a dream that Wallace had had – Wallace received confirmation that he should fight for Scotland and that he had Church support.

  It is probable that this attack was motivated by something personal to Wallace and that he was already an outlaw by this time. As Sheriff, Heselrigg had responsibility for the organisation of fealty-taking to Edward I as well as property matters in his area and it may have been, as argued in Chapter 2, that Wallace’s grievance was a family one relating to swearing fealty and/or the confiscation of property. As the Guisborough chronicler points out, there was persecution by some English officials of those who did not wish to pledge their allegiance to the King of England. While in the Lanercost Chronicle William Wallace is referred to as a ‘certain bloody man . . . who had formerly been chief of brigands in Scotland’, Walter of Guisborough’s earliest reference to Wallace is as ‘a vagrant fugitive’ who ‘called all the exiles to himself and made himself almost their prince: they grew to be numerous’. Thus, at first, it seems that William Wallace was an independent adventurer, motivated by the persecution of his family by the English.

  Clearly, however, William Wallace was not the only one with a complaint against the English. An early associate of Wallace’s, according to Walter of Guisborough, was William Douglas who had been in command of Berwick Castle in 1296 and had to surrender it to the English. Douglas had a reputation as a troublemaker to both the Guardians and Edward I. He was known to Edward I for his rash actions in abducting and marrying by force an English widow, Eleanor Ferrers, who was staying with relatives in Scotland. However, after his surrender at Berwick:

  When the king had restored everything to him he became unmindful of these good deeds and turned robber working with a robber . . . the two Williams with perverse people thought they could find the justiciar of the king at Scone, where he had heard pleas, and they hastened to destroy him. But he was forewarned and escaped with difficulty, leaving to the enemy many spoils.

  Scone Cross. Scone played a prominent part in the early years of the Scottish wars. It was important symbolically as the King of Scots was traditionally crowned at Scone Abbey where the Stone of Destiny was kept. Thus the raid of William Wallace and William Douglas on William Ormesby, the Justiciar and therefore one of Edward I’s most important officials, while he was holding court there, was a very significant development.

  It is unlikely that the attack on the Justiciar William Ormesby was a random attack. It is Walter of Guisborough again who notes that Ormesby was a particularly intense prosecutor of ‘all those who did not wish to swear fealty to the king of England without making distinction of person’. The Douglas family were related to the Stewarts by marriage and also to the Morays. William Douglas, before his infamous abduction of Eleanor Ferrers, was married to James Stewart’s sister, Elizabeth. This common association with the Stewarts gives further backing to the assertion by the Lanercost and Guisborough chroniclers that James Stewart was one of the ‘authors of the whole evil’ (Guisborough Chronicle).

  Loudoun Hill. This area was, in fact, the location of a skirmish fought by Robert Bruce in June 1307. Blind Harry transferred the episode to William Wallace’s career and made it the place where Wallace gained revenge for the death of his father.

  It seems that Stewart secretly backed the risings of Wallace and Douglas before coming out openly against Edward I in about July 1297. According to Walter of Guisborough, Wallace, while at Perth, received messengers ‘in great haste on behalf of certain magnates of the kingdom of Scotland’, probably Stewart and Wishart. In this escalation of his resistance, Stewart was joined in alliance again with Bishop Robert Wishart of Glasgow, who had a distinguished record of outspoken opposition to Edward I’s interventionist approach. The involvement of Stewart and Bishop Wishart, who had acted as Guardians and had played active roles in the government of John Balliol, certainly gave their military endeavours an ‘official’ character. Contemporary chroniclers, as well as later historians, have tended to pay more attention to this revolt because of two of the participants’ seniority within the Scottish ruling hierarchy. As has been seen, Stewart had been threatened in his attempt to stay in public office and retain political power in western Scotland under Edward I. Now, Stewart and Wishart, it is clear from the negotiation terms following their ignominious surrender at Irvine in early July 1297, regarded themselves as leaders and representatives of the ‘whole community of the realm of Scotland’ (from the Treaty at Irvine) and John Balliol’s kingship.

  An interesting twist to this so-called ‘aristocratic revolt’ – Andrew Moray and William Douglas were also noblemen – was the involvement of the young Robert Bruce, Earl of Carrick, and future King, as one of the leaders alongside Stewart and Wishart. Robert Bruce had been exiled with his father by the Comyn/Balliol government – his father had not sworn fealty
to Balliol and they had both been on Edward’s side at the outbreak of war in 1296. The fact that Edward I showed no inclination to reward the Bruces after Dunbar with either the kingship of Scotland or even political power in Scotland may have persuaded the younger Bruce to join in the 1297 revolt after it had started. The Guisborough chronicler believes that Bruce was already aiming at the throne. It seems more probable, however, that he was, as a first step, trying to use his military power as a Scottish earl and his family friendship with the Stewarts and Wisharts to establish himself as one of the chief leaders of the Scottish political community in the absence of his Scottish rivals, the Comyns and John Balliol.

  Despite the ease of the English victory over Wishart, Stewart and Bruce at Irvine, rebellion in Scotland was beginning to trouble Edward I. The surrender negotiations lasted for some time and it may have been that there was a deliberate attempt by the three leaders to procrastinate and draw attention away from revolts elsewhere in Scotland. Meanwhile, Edward I who was generally, in 1297, more concerned with his expedition to Flanders, sought to use the Comyns and their associates in government in late June 1297 (duly chastened, he hoped, by their defeat, political exile and imprisonment in England in 1296–7) to restore order in Scotland. The role of the Comyns was vital given their dominance over central and local government in Scotland prior to 1296. In the north, John Comyn, Earl of Buchan, and his brother, Alexander, were sent to help Henry Cheyne, Bishop of Aberdeen, the Countess of Ross and Gartnait, son of the Earl of Mar, to control the rebellion of Andrew Moray. John Comyn of Badenoch was commanded by Edward I to assist Brian Fitz Alan, the new custodian of the kingdom, in the south. Alexander Macdougall had been released from prison at Berwick on 24 May 1297, a month earlier than the Comyns, to help dissuade his son from continuing his revolt in the north-west. The news from Hugh Cressingham in late July and early August 1297 cast doubt on either the ability or the willingness of the Comyns to promote Edward I’s interests in Scotland (in a letter of 5 August 1297 to Edward I):

  Scottish resistance in 1297 before the Battle of Stirling Bridge, 11 September 1297.

  Ettrick Forest, above Moffatt, the base for William Wallace’s military efforts both before and after the Battle of Stirling Bridge. In areas such as these, the historical William Wallace and the ‘Scottish Robin Hood’ tradition of the fifteenth century come more closely together.

  . . . in some counties the Scotch have established and placed bailiffs and ministers so that no county is in proper order excepting Berwick and Roxburgh . . . the peace on the other side of the Scottish sea is still in obscurity, as it is said, as to the doings of the earls [the Comyns are meant here] who are there . . .

  According to the Guisborough Chronicle, John Comyn, Earl of Buchan, ‘at first pretended to repress rebellion, but in the end changed sides and became a thorn in our flesh’. The Comyns did not come out openly in support of revolt and resume their leadership role within Scotland – the presence of John Comyn, the younger, of Badenoch, heir of the senior branch of the family, in Edward I’s army in Flanders may have dissuaded the Comyns from an open stance. However, the ability of the Scots to establish their own officers and the ability of Moray to gather a large infantry unit in the Comyn-dominated north and make his way to join Wallace’s forces in the south strongly suggests collusion with the Comyns. Moray and his forces had military control as far south as Perth and were preparing to meet up with Wallace’s troops. Meanwhile, Wallace took advantage of the delays after the Irvine capitulation to gather a large company in the forest of Selkirk ‘like one who holds himself against your peace’ (letter from Hugh Cressingham to Edward I, 23 July 1297).

  In the context of lackadaisical English command in Scotland and, it seems, wide-scale sabotage of the English administration in the country, Wallace’s following grew in number and strength. According to the Guisborough Chronicle:

  . . . that bandit Wallace gathered the people to him . . . By now, indeed, he had raised an immense army, for all the common folk of the land followed him as their general and prince. All the retainers and tenants of the nobleman also came in to him, and though the nobles themselves were with our king in body, yet their hearts had long been with their own people . . .

  Wallace’s forces, having replenished and equipped themselves at Bishop Wishart’s manor at Ancrum, moved north from Selkirk Forest to meet Andrew Moray’s unit near Perth. The combined strength of Wallace and Moray was great enough to besiege Dundee.

  Howe of Mearns. It is known that William Wallace and William Douglas were at Scone, but Blind Harry’s narrative has Wallace proceeding afterwards north through the Mearns.

  In early September, however, the delayed English reaction at last happened – as late as 26 September 1297, the English still believed that John Comyn, Earl of Buchan, remained loyal. Revolt in Scotland had escalated and sparked off an increasingly violent general rising between Forth and Tay, backed in this area by Macduff, son of the Earl of Fife. News of the increasingly racial attacks on the English in Scotland, including clerics, were related to the monks at Guisborough, apparently by an eyewitness:

  Dunnotar Castle. There is no historical record of Wallace laying siege to any castle north of Dundee, though Blind Harry’s account has Wallace – it was, more probably, Andrew Moray – besieging and capturing Dunnotar Castle. This castle, taken by Edward I in 1296, has spectacular natural defences. No part of the present structure is earlier than the late fourteenth-century keep.

  Strathfillan. Blind Harry’s description of Wallace’s campaigns north of Glasgow through Strathfillan to Loch Dochart is rather reminiscent of Robert Bruce’s campaigns in this area in 1307.

  Loch Etive. Blind Harry says that Wallace spent some time on the north shore of this loch.

  They even dragged English monks violently from monasteries . . . and made a sport and spectacle of them . . . Among their victims were two English canons of St. Andrews, who were carried to the bridge at Perth . . . they stood there, being subjected to a kind of mock-trial before that bandit Wallace and expecting death at any moment . . . three Englishmen who had been given a house at St. Andrews . . . fled from Wallace and his men and ran to the sacred stone called St. Andrew’s Needle, believing that they would be protected by the sanctuary of Holy Church: but the Scots pursued them, and cut them down at that very stone . . .

  Ardchattan Priory, on the north side of Loch Etive. According to Blind Harry, Wallace held a council here but there is no historical evidence for this. It may be another example of the poet taking episodes from Robert Bruce’s campaigns and adding them to Wallace’s record.

  Such incidents were, perhaps, necessary to provoke a reaction from the slothful, indecisive English commanders in Scotland.

  4

  GUERRILLA TO GOVERNOR

  The period between May 1297 and March 1298 saw William Wallace rise in meteoric fashion to military and political leadership in Scotland. Although it is fairly certain that he was an outlaw when he murdered William Heselrigg, the English Sheriff of Lanark, in the early summer of 1297, within a few months Wallace was being viewed in an entirely different way. By 11 October 1297 – after victory over the English at the Battle of Stirling Bridge (11 September) – Wallace was describing himself, together with Andrew Moray, as joint leader at Stirling Bridge, as ‘leaders of the army of the kingdom of Scotland’ (letter to the towns of Lübeck and Hamburg). On 29 March 1298 Wallace defined himself in another official document, the Charter of William Wallace to Alexander Scrymgeour, as

  . . . knight, Guardian of the kingdom of Scotland and commander of its army, in the name of the famous prince the lord John, by God’s grace illustrious king of Scotland, by consent of the community of that kingdom . . .

  This was perhaps even applicable shortly after the death of Andrew Moray in late November 1297. Just a few months after his emergence ‘from his den’, William Wallace had been elevated in social status to knight and was acknowledged as sole military and political commander in Scotland in
the name of his King, John Balliol. In the hierarchical, aristocratic world of medieval state and martial affairs, this was a phenomenal achievement.

  It could be argued that William Wallace’s rapid rise to military and political power was made possible partly by the failures of the English in Scotland. Certainly, Scottish resistance, in general, had been aided not only by a mixture of insensitive political and economic policies imposed by the new English administration after 1296, but also a rather complacent military strategy supposedly aimed at crushing the growing opposition from May 1297. Resistance in 1297 seemed most unlikely given the apparent ease and thoroughness of the English victory and takeover in 1296. The symbolic removal of Scottish regalia, especially the Stone of Destiny, added to the actual expulsion of the Scottish King and the chief families involved in Scottish central and local government, left few rallying points for future opposition. However, Edward I’s policy in 1297 of using all resources at his disposal in all lands under his direct rule – and this now included Scotland – to maintain his hold over Gascony and launch a major campaign in Flanders against the French King had unforeseen consequences in Scotland. A kingdom that had just lost its king, and independent status, suddenly felt the harsh realities of direct rule. A large sum of over £5,000 was soon raised from Scotland for use outside the country, and this was achieved through compulsory seizure of a major economic asset, wool. A rumour was reported by Scottish nobles in July 1297 that

  . . . they were told for a certainty that the king would have seized all the middle people of Scotland to send them beyond the Scottish sea in his army, to their great damage and destruction . . .

  This sparked widespread unrest, as such policies affected most classes in Scottish society. When similar plans called forth political opposition to Edward I in England from both nobility and clergy in 1297, it is hardly surprising that a stronger reaction was provoked in Scotland where exactions also emphasised the impact of loss of independence.