How did Bruce win independence 1306-1328? How did Bruce become king? How did Bruce win the civil war? How did Bruce defeat the English in Scotland? How important was Bannockburn to independence? How did Bruce get independence accepted by England?

How did Bruce win independence? Copy key timeline 1302-5 Scots continue to fight eg Comyn 1305 Scots surrender, Wallace executed 1306 Feb Bruce kills rival Comyn, MarchBruce crowned King 1306-7 Bruce hides 1307 Edward I dies 1307-8 Civil war: Bruce v Comyns Battle of Inverurie 1309 1st Parliament, French ally, Declaration of the Clergy 1314 Battle of Bannockburn –defeats Edward II . Cambuskenneth – forbids Scots to hold English land 1315 Irish war 1320 Declaration of Arbroath 1328 Treaty of Edinburgh – peace with England

How did Bruce become King? Got bishop’s support June 1304, Bishops supported Bruce in secret = Church no longer supporting Balliol as king Decided to lead resistance Resistance against England continued after Falkirk Bruce surrendered 1302- became pro-Edward But Comyns did too, and started to get good jobs Angry that Comyns getting sheriff jobs from Edward? Bruce switched sides 1305 Removed rivals Feb 1306 Killed Comyn in Dumfries Church = excommunicated by Pope (never going to heaven) Big problem for a ? King because...

How did Bruce become King? 4. Crowned King At Scone March 1306 No choice... Because excommunicated = can’t go to heaven Needs to get Scots support

http://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/history/scotland_united/wallace_kills_sheriff_of_lanark/ http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/video/n/video_tcm4567295.asp?strReferringChannel=higherscottishhistory&strReferringPageID=tcm:4-570331-64

What happened Bannockburn 1314? Use the textbook p.64 onwards to construct a moving model of the battle. lego model stirling bridge It should show: Map: shape of land, river, bridge, castle English: Knights, leaders, De Bohun, etc Scots: leaders, schiltrons Give stages of battle as x5+ bullet points

Why did Bruce win Bannockburn? Weak English army? 2000 knights, 15,000 footmen, 3000 archers smaller and less organised than at Dunbar Had trouble calling feudal levies Weak leadership? Edward II insisted on fighting Confused chain of command Put favourites in command rather than experienced

Why did Bruce win Bannockburn? Strong Scots army? 5000 total, in x3 schiltrons Well trained ‘almost professional’ Mixed weapons- few bows, but good for close fighting Strong leadership? Scots had good morale, very experienced 3 schiltrons commanded by good leaders: King Robert, Edward Bruce, and Earl of Murray Ground well prepared- holes to force English knights into narrow space, Scots safe on high ground and forest.

What happened at Bannockburn? http://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/history/articles/battle_of_bannockburn/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiCPiRthgjI

What happened at Bannockburn? Day 1 English scouts approach Stirling Bruce kills one of them, schiltrons hold off 300 knights = blow to English morale Clifford’s second attempt also fails Day 2 English army disorganised- crosses Bannockburn, leaving archers behind knights. Scots schiltrons move forward so English knights have little room to charge Scots knights used to stop English archers from firing

What were the results of Bannockburn? Huge English losses 1 earl, 27 barons, 375 knights, 1000s of footsoldiers Scotland’s biggest victory over England Edward II bad leader? Didn’t use combination of knights and archers to defeat schiltrons Scots now supported Bruce BUT English continued to attack...

How did Bruce gain independence? Secured control over Scots Scots supported a winner Statute of Cambuskenneth 1314 = forbade Scots nobles to hold land in England = couldn’t do homage to English king (why?) = more land to hand out = more followers Many enemies eg John Comyn died at Bannockburn Comyn’s lands given to Randolph and Douglas

How did Bruce gain independence? Secured control over Scots Scots supported a winner Statute of Cambuskenneth 1314 = forbade Scots nobles to hold land in England = couldn’t do homage to English king (why?) = more land to hand out = more followers Many enemies eg John Comyn died at Bannockburn Comyn’s lands given to Randolph and Douglas Swapped English Earl of Hereford for his wife and daughters, and Wishart

How did Bruce gain independence? Attacked Ireland 1315 Why Ireland? = divide English forces Get kingdom for brother Edward Bruce Captured Carrickfergus, but not Dublin or many other castles Edward killed at Meath 1318 BUT did keep English armies occupied & English fear of Welsh joining in with Edward meant they were sent home

How did Bruce gain independence? Attacked England Carlisle 1315, 1316, 1318 1319 as far as Yorkshire Meant English army couldn’t invade Scotland but had to chase after him 1322 another great English army ran out of food in its invasion 1323 Earl of Carlisle made a separate peace with Bruce to avoid being attacked = shows weakness of Edward II 13 year truce agreed

How did Bruce gain independence? Declaration of Arbroath Edward II could control Pope because was his feudal overlord for lands in France = Bruce still excommunicated for Comyn’s murder 1319 Pope orders Scots bishops to be told off for supporting Bruce 3 letters sent from Scots to Pope (clergy, nobles and Bruce). Nobles one = Declaration of Arbroath = guarantees to fight for Scots independence ? Says that Scots king will be removed if he doesn’t also fight for independence

How did Bruce gain independence? Declaration of Arbroath = propaganda, most nobles won’t have read it Soulis Conspiracy William Soulis was a Comyn, and one of 13 claimants He and Balliol’s son, Edward, tries to take over throne Bruce quickly executed them Shows he didn’t have full control over nobles as suggested by Declaration of Arbroath

How did Bruce gain independence? Treaty of Edinburgh 1328 Edward II deposed by wife – killed Bruce sends Douglas to invade England Edward III (aged 14) not so good a leader More invasions of Ulster and Northumbria Mortimer and Isabella need to negotiate because not strong in England = Treaty of Edinburgh Bruce withdraws from Northumbria, pays £20,000 damages Recognised as King of Scots – marriage arranged to seal it

How reliable is Barbour on Bannockburn? Mentions James Douglas as a commander- probably wasn’t but he was later a good friend of Bruce’s and Barbour’s bosses. John Barbour (c.1320 1395) was a Scottish poet and the first major named literary figure to write in Scots. His principal surviving work is the poem, The Brus (The Bruce), and his reputation from this poem is such that other long works in Scots which survive from the period are sometimes thought to be by him. Barbour was Archdeacon of the Kirk of St Machar in Aberdeen. He also studied in Oxford and Paris. Although he was a man of the church, his surviving writing is strongly secular in both tone and themes. His principal patron was Robert II and evidence of his promotion and movements before Robert Stewart came to power as king tend to suggest that Barbour acted politically on the future king's behalf.

John of Fordun (before 1360 – c. 1384) was a Scottish chronicler John of Fordun (before 1360 – c. 1384) was a Scottish chronicler. It is generally stated that he was born at Fordoun, Mearns. It is certain that he was a secular priest, and that he composed his history in the latter part of the 14th century; and it is probable that he was a chaplain in the St Machar's Cathedral of Aberdeen.[1] The work of Fordun is the earliest attempt to write a continuous history of Scotland. We are informed that Fordun's patriotic zeal was roused by the removal or destruction of many national records by Edward III of England and that he traveled in England and Ireland, collecting material for his history.

The Lanercost Chronicle is a northern English history covering the years 1201 to 1346.[1] It covers the Wars of Scottish Independence, but it is also highly digressive and as such provides insights into English life in the thirteenth century as well as Scottish life. It includes Robert the Bruce. He was a patriotic hater of the Scots"[3]

The Scotichronicon is a 15th-century chronicle or legendary account, by the Scottish historian Walter Bower. It is a continuation of historian-priest John of Fordun's earlier work Chronica Gentis Scotorum beginning with the founding of Scotland of mediaeval legend, The National Library of Scotland has called it "probably the most important mediaeval account of early Scottish history", noting that it provides a strong expression of national identity -

Scotichronicon, is the joint work of John of Fordun and his continuator Walter Bower abbot of Inchcolm in the Firth of Forth. The first five books and some part of the sixth were completed by John of Fordun, between 1384 and 1387. Of Fordun, we know nothing save what is told us in various manuscripts of his works. He probably was born at Fordoun, in Kincardineshire, was was probably a chantry priest in the cathedral of Aberdeen. Fordun, undoubtedly, took great pains in collecting his materials by visiting monasteries in England and even in Ireland where chronicles were to be found. Unfortunately, he was able to complete his work only as far as the death of David I in 1153. The material with which his continuator worked was largely collected by Fordun. But Bower was a much less competent person than his predecessor. He was engaged upon the chronicle between 1441 and 1449, and brought down the history to the death of James I in 1437. He is garrulous, irrelevant and inaccurate. He was so boring that even contemporaries liked to shorten his work. He worked for James II

How fully does Source 11 demonstrate the strength of Scottish resistance?

How fully does Source 11 demonstrate the strength of Scottish resistance? The source mentions the ‘robber’ William Wallace. He was a key figure in leading Scots to rebel. It says he was ‘almost’ their prince. This shows that Scots followed him even though he wasn’t their king showing how powerful he was as a leader. It mentions others including Douglas and Bruce. This shows that many important nobles joined in the fight. However it misses out the detail about their rebellion as the same time as Wallace and their surrender at Irvine- this shows less success in resistance. It mentions the Bishop of Glasgow. Wishart was central to organising resistance from Irvine to Selkirk.

How fully does Source 11 demonstrate the strength of Scottish resistance? However it misses out other rebellions such as the McDougal’s in the Western Isles which were not organised by Wishart. It also misses out the major rebellion by Murray in the North East. This was larger than Wallace’s at least at first, and Murray may have been a more important leader unti his death in 1297. It misses out the success of Scottish battles at Stirling. This was when a smaller Scottish army defeated an English army. It also misses out Wallace’s successful leadership of Scotland as Guardian- he encouraged trade with Lubeck for example. It mentions the ‘faithless Scots’. This refers to the Scots who had made an oath to Edward and then gone back on it after the Ragman’s roll. It shows how many Scots were willing to risk breaking their oath. Overall it misses out some important parts of Scottish resistance so doesn’t fully show the strength.