Wallaces Army example essay topic

William Wallace, one of Scotlands greatest national heroes to ever live, had had enough of King Edward I (Long shanks), king of England rule over Scotland. The patriotic Scottish outlaw organized a rebellion to stand up to Edwards rule. Wallace became a hero among the Scots but was considered a traitor by the English. Ultimately Scotland did win its freedom, but Wallaces own campaign was a failure.

The main reasons for the failure of William Wallaces military campaign are: The lack of leadership on the Scottish side, the lack of cooperation among the Scottish nobles, and the fact that the Scots were greatly outnumbered, poorly trained and poorly armed. The first point that will be discussed is the lack of Scottish leadership. It would be impossible for any army to have many, if any, victories when there is no true leader to stand up and lead. Scotlands king, Alexander, had, died after riding off a cliff during a wild storm. 1 There was no heir to the Scottish throne because King Alexander had outlived all of his children. 2 Without a king, Scotland was pretty much lost.

They had no direction as to what to do or when to do it. Without a king, the next in line to rule would have been the nobles. The problem with the nobles is that they were all too stubborn and proud to be ordered around by anyone, or cooperate with any of the other nobles. They would fight in their own good time and wherever they saw fit, but they would accept orders from no one.

3 It was bad enough that Scotland had no king but the defiance by the nobles to lend Wallace aid did not help Wallaces campaign at all. The little leadership the Scottish rebels had was not enough. William Wallace is said to have been an excellent fighter. Unmatched in strength, speed, stamina or skill with a claymore, but despite his ability to fight, he was very inexperienced in commanding an army. The only thing he had ever led was a handful of loyal rebels on raids. The Scottish spirits were high but their courage was not enough to overcome the lack of organization.

4 Thomas B. Costain says, The best fighting force in the world would be helpless if it lacked authority behind it to supply arms and food and scouting facilities to keep an eye on enemy movements. 5 The Scots were at an obvious disadvantage from the get go. Another factor that influenced the failure of Wallaces rebellion, beside the Scottish lack of leadership or organization, is the unwillingness of the Scottish nobles to come together as one unit and fight together to rid their country of the English oppressors. The nobles just simply could not find it in themselves to cooperate.

After King Alexander had died, and after his only heir to the throne, Margaret, died, thirteen claimants to the Scottish throne came forward. 6 By this time King Edward of England saw his opportunity and Scotland was essentially occupied by the English. 7 The competition for the crown was very stiff and it caused many internal conflicts amongst the nobles. 8 It is obviously difficult to imagine the nobles uniting to work together on the battlefield when they are all competing for the throne.

Apart from the conflicts with each other, the nobles were constantly switching alliances. One day they would be fighting against Edward, and the next day they would be fighting with him. Wallace had to constantly be aware of this so as not to put his trust into the wrong person. Unlike the conniving Scottish nobles who had collaborated with the English in return for financial benefits, Wallace had never sought personal fame, nor benefited from it. 9 The nobles were constantly being bought off by Edward. Most of them held large land estates in England, and if they were to fight against Edward they would lose these estates.

To the nobles it was not worth the loss. They didnt care about the good of the country they just cared about themselves. Going into the battle of Falkirk, which was the battle where the Scots lost all of their military momentum, Wallace was under the impression that Robert the Bruce was going to be fighting with him and his army. Bruce was one of the two main contenders for the throne. John Balliol was the other main contender. Bruce submitted to Edward in 1302, perhaps because he had heard that France was supporting Balliol, the party of resistance was not solid.

10 Wallace did not have the support from Bruce that he needed at Falkirk, which is a good reason the Scots lost that day out on the battlefield. It is ironic however because Bruce is the one who eventually led the Scots to victory after Wallaces death. He also became Scotlands king. Probably the most influential factor in Wallaces failure was that his army was not only very poorly trained and poorly armed but they were also greatly outnumbered by the English as well. Wallace just simply did not have the number of cavalry needed to face the English. Wallace was in command of forty thousand foot soldiers and one hundred and eighty horses, while the English army consisted of fifty thousand foot soldiers and a thousand horses.

11 These are huge numbers to overcome for any army, never mind an army of common farmers. Edwards English army was made up of trained archers, trained foot soldiers and mounted knights. The knights alone would have been a big obstacle to overcome for Wallaces army. Thomas B. Costain says, The army he (Wallace) commanded consisted largely of men who had lost their clan leaders but who still wanted to fight. They were brave but they were not trained soldiers in any sense of the word.

12 Pitting a knight against an untrained man in a fight would be a no contest. Although Wallace did become a knight after winning at Stirling Bridge, his army was still a bunch of angry farmers with pitchforks. Being angry farmers with pitchforks is enough to tell you that the Scots did not have the weapons or armor needed to fight a war. They tried to protect their bodies by any means possible. They depended on tunics stuffed with wool, tow or old cloth to soften the edge of a sword thrust. 13 This kind of armor is nowhere near the caliber of armor that the English would have worn.

The English would have had heavy chain mail or plated armor, able to withstand arrows or sword blows. Also, archery had been neglected in Scotland and the bows they used were completely outdated by the deadly long bow of the Welsh. 14 That put the Scots at a big disadvantage because a lot of the time in battles the archers decided the outcome. Archers could strike an army from a safe distance, which made them a very valuable part of any army.

Many reasons for Wallaces failure have been discussed but Wallace was by no means wasting his time. His legacy lived on for many years after his death and in fact it still lives today. It is because of Wallace that Scotland eventually won its freedom. Wallaces efforts have been remembered with a 220-foot tall monument set on a hill just a few miles from the town of Stirling.

The story of William Wallace has also been immortalized on film in the academy award-winning movie Braveheart. Wallace undoubtedly proved that he was the stuff of which heroes are made. By even attempting to overcome the odds that were stacked against him and doing it all without ever selling out to Edward. We have not come for peace.