HOW DID WILLIAM WALLACE MANAGE TO ESCAPE THE MASSACRE AT THE BATTLE OF FALKIRK ON 22 JULY 1298?
HOW DID WILLIAM WALLACE MANAGE TO ESCAPE THE MASSACRE AT THE BATTLE OF FALKIRK ON 22 JULY 1298?
In the summer of 1298 King Edward I of England invaded Scotland with a very large army that included thousands of cavalry and archers. The army probably numbered between 20,000 and 30,000 men. Edward's first objective was to locate and defeat William Wallace who himself had a sizeable force of approximately 8,000.
But by 21 July there was still no sign of Wallace who had likely opted for a scorched-earth policy in the hope of starving the English and forcing a retreat, or at least to weaken them for battle. On that day Edward was considering a withdrawal to Edinburgh when a spy or scout rode into the English camp and told him not only of Wallace’s location, but also of his tactics.
The spy or scout told Edward, "My lord king, the Scots army and all your enemies are no more than eighteen miles from here, just outside Falkirk … They have heard that you intend to retreat to Edinburgh, and they mean to follow you and attack your camp tomorrow night, or at least to fall on your rearguard."
On hearing this, King Edward apparently said, "May God be praised, for He has solved all my problems. The Scots will have no need to follow me, for I will march to meet them on this very day." The English army then marched on the Scottish position.
It seems that Wallace was quite content to adhere to his guerrilla tactics, which he had excelled in, but the English king heard of his plans and marched to meet him, and Wallace decided to stand and fight. Could he have retreated once he had realised the English army was heading his way? Possibly, but it may have been risky to move his army with the English cavalry just several miles away.
It is important to remember that Wallace's position as Guardian of Scotland rested on his military success. Avoiding battle and allowing the English a free march to Stirling was out of the question. Wallace was probably under pressure from his men to defeat the English once and for all. It is possible that he was overconfident in his abilities and ignorant to the threat posed by the English army at this stage, especially the archers.
As great a guerrilla leader as he was, Wallace was not experienced at organising large numbers of men in battles on the scale of Falkirk. This was his first time, against the largest English army for many a year, and the decision to fight proved costly.
The battle of Falkirk took place on 22 July 1298. When the English caught up with the Scots, their cavalry attacked almost instantly, which no doubt came as a shock to Wallace who, judging by his tactics, had deployed his men in a hurry. So sudden was the onslaught that the English infantry was still marching up the road and many soldiers were not present to see the initial cavalry charge.
Wallace had his men deployed in four circular formations called schiltrons, each possibly numbering 2,000 men, "made up wholly of spearmen, standing shoulder to shoulder in deep ranks and facing towards the circumference of the circle, with their spears slanting outwards at an oblique angle".² In between the schiltrons were the Scottish archers and to the rear was a small cavalry force. According to the Rishanger Chronicle, "a great number of long stakes [were] fixed into the ground and tied together with cords and ropes like a fence so that they would obstruct the passage of the English."
Some historians believe that each schiltron was protected by its own fence of stakes that went all the way round the formation. I find it difficult to believe that Wallace had each of his schiltrons, which were already bristling with spears, surrounded by a fence of stakes but left his archers out in the open to be charged down by the heavy cavalry. Surely the archers would have refused to be fodder for the English cavalry? I believe the fences were placed in front of Wallace’s army, which provided the archers with protection from a frontal cavalry attack.
In his book, William Wallace, Andrew Fisher interestingly suggests that what the English encountered may have been a Scottish fortified camp from which Wallace intended to send a sortie to attack the English army as they moved to Edinburgh. But as we know, the English became aware of Wallace’s plan and moved towards his position. Fisher's theory also explains the reason for the fences of stakes, if it really was the place from which Wallace intended to strike at the English.
Back to the battle.
The English cavalry attacked the Scots in a pincer and the Scots cavalry, fearing the worst, fled the field leaving the Scottish archers to the mercy of the English cavalry. According to Guisborough, the Scots cavalry fled the field without striking a single sword's blow. This has often been viewed as betrayal, but Wallace too fled the battle, and likely on horseback. But at what stage did Wallace decide to flee? According to the Flores Historiarum, a contemporary English account:
"When he [Wallace] had collected an army of Scots in the battle of Falkirk against the King of England, and had seen that he could not resist the powerful army of the king, said to the Scots, "Behold I have brought you into a ring, now carol and dance as well as you can," and so fled himself from the battle, leaving his people to be slain by the sword."
It is unlikely that Wallace was positioned inside a schiltron and therefore must have been at the rear with the cavalry. If so, then Wallace is likely to have fled either with the Scottish cavalry or very shortly afterwards, since he would have been exposed to the English heavy cavalry attack from the flanks and rear had he remained. According to the Scottish chronicle, Gesta Annalia ll, Wallace left immediately after the Scottish cavalry. Thus, facing certain capture or death, Wallace fled the battle early and it is possible that he left without even striking a blow.
We will likely never know exactly what happened, but unless Wallace was inside a schiltron, there was no other safe place for him on the battlefield once the English heavy cavalry had clashed with the Scottish infantry. With the Scottish cavalry, and presumably Wallace, gone, the English infantry moved forward and unleashed a hail of stones and arrows before the English cavalry made further attempts to break the Scottish ranks. What followed was a hard-fought battle. There is evidence that suggests the English might have lost over two thousand infantry in the fighting; the Scots lost considerably more. Bodies covered the field, "as thickly as snow in winter" wrote one chronicler.
Personally, I don't blame Wallace for escaping the battle of Falkirk. It is admirable courage charging into a fight against hundreds of mounted soldiers to be slaughtered, but it is also folly. Wallace did what most people would have done in that situation. The mistake he made was giving battle in the first place, but as mentioned above, he might have believed there was no other choice, we really don't know.
Author: International Man of History2/Sir William Wallace (Facebook page names)
. . .
Picture credit: Andrew Hillhouse
Notes:
1. This is just an estimate based in no evidence really. The Scottish army at Stirling was probably 5,000 therefore it is reasonable to presume the Scottish army at Falkirk was larger.
2. Guisborough Chronicle
Comments
Post a Comment