1. The Wallace

2. The Wallace 29/10/18 AIM – Learn about the Scottish rebellion of 1297.
SUCCESS CRITERIA –
Be able to describe the steps to rebellion for both Wallace and Murray.
Be able to explain why Wallace and Murray were both so successful in 1297.
Be able to make a judgement on the true role of Scotland’s nobles in the 1297 rebellion.
TASKS
Copy today’s aim and heading into your jotter.
Through class questioning, recap how the early seeds of rebellion took hold in Scotland in late 1296 and early 1297.
3. Go through today’s PPt (following this slide), taking notes of information given in bold. Enjoy a section of Braveheart and discuss the significance of what we see.
4. Paste in your handout on Irvine (and make sure that our previous lesson’s handout has also been glued in or securely added to your ringbinders)
5. Complete today’s ‘big question’.

3. The problem of his origins
We have a problem with our sources on Wallace: most are secondary accounts by people who never knew him. Our main account is a poem by Blind Harry, written 180 years after Wallace lived.
Blind to the truth?: Blind Harry was the Scots Makar in the 1480s, writing propaganda-laden poetry for King James IV.
There are questions over Wallace’s origins: he may have been from Elderslie near Paisley in Renfrewshire or Ellerslie in Ayrshire. It’s thought he was the younger son of a non-titled member of the gentry.
Historians believe he was an archer by profession, working in the forests of Selkirk. He used a bow as the emblem on his seal. Wallace was a nobody until the rebellion: history records only one possible mention of a ‘William le Waleys, a thief’ in a court roll from 1296.

4. His rebellion begins
The first solid account of Wallace appears with his murder of the English sheriff of Lanark – Sir William Hazelrigg (Heselrig) in May 1297.
We should be cautious as the account stems from Blind Harry. John of Fordun (writing in the 1350s) records that by May 1297, ‘Wallace had raised his head’. Wallace’s murder of Hazelrigg can’t be doubted, but his motives are uncertain.
No going back from this point for Wallace – he was now an outlaw and would be unlikely to have received a pardon from Edward.
Historian Andrew Fisher said ‘Lanark posed a challenge and offered an insult; Edward was not the man to ignore either’.
Wallace appears in a court roll of the English army of occupation in the company of an Englishman, Matthew of York. He may have already been a figure on the edge of society. A bandit or a poacher? The crime was the theft of 3 shillings worth of beer from Cristiana of St. John in Perth. Matthew of York was caught, Wallace was only named and was still at large. NOW SHOW Braveheart scene with Wallace’s storming of Lanark.
Hazelrigg: who did you say was here to see me?
Show Braveheart clip.

5. Wallace was able to motivate ordinary people to fight
Wallace was able to motivate ordinary people to fight. After Lanark, his band of 30 men grew at once. Walter of Guisborough wrote ‘the retainers of great lords adhered to him’. Leading the men of Strathclyde, he sparked a large rebellion across SW Scotland.
Wallace was no longer a man in hiding. After Lanark he was visible, available and powerful. The country was in ferment and he sparked the fire.
Basing himself in the Selkirk Forest, he launched devastating raids across Dumfriesshire, capturing castles and killing Edward’s supporters.
Archer by trade: Selkirk Forest was Wallace’s hunting ground for years before he raised his warband under its branches

6. After Lanark, Wallace rode 80 miles north to attack English justiciar Sir William Ormesby at Scone, whilst the Scots nobles negotiated their surrender at Irvine.
Ormesby - more senior than Hazelrigg and a valuable target - had been about to open his court of session. He only narrowly escaped with his life, leaving his valuables behind.
News of Wallace’s raid spread like wildfire and rebellion flared between the Forth and Tay with the support of MacDuff.
Those English outposts which survived shrank behind the walls of their occupied castles and hid.
Giddy up!: Wallace rides north

7. The Black Douglas
Wallace’s rebellion quickly began to attract allies: the Black Douglas had been the commander of Scottish defenders at Berwick during Edward’s invasion.
Attracted by the opportunity for violence, Douglas attached himself to Wallace as his new colleague.
He was a violent man, notorious, already guilty of the abduction of a rich widow and of murder.
The killing game: the Black Douglas had already built a name as a notorious killer before May 1297.

8. Murray
Andrew Murray’s (de Moray) rebellion started in the North at the same time as Wallace’s.
He was son of Sir Andrew Murray of Petty. His family had considerable wealth and were well-connected, particularly to the Comyns.
Murray fought at Dunbar as was imprisoned in Chester castle. He soon escaped, returned to Moray, and planned his rebellion.
Murray raised men from tenants of his father’s lands and joined up with the MacDougall clan in the Great Glen. Together they overran Urquhart and Inverlochy castles and attacked local rivals, the MacDonald’s (Edward’s appointed men in the west). He then raised Comyn tenants in Badenoch and Moray and built a large army.

9. Murray then pushed south from Moray Firth to Angus
Murray then pushed south from Moray Firth to Angus. He had cleared English garrisons from the north of Scotland down to Dundee by August 1297, capturing strongholds such as Inverness, Banff and Elgin on the way.
On the way, the English sheriff of Aberdeenshire defected to join the rebels!
Murray met Wallace at Dundee and with the nobles surrendering they vowed to become the leaders of the army of Scotland – they would fight on in the name of King John.
And I would ride 500 miles…: Having conquered the north, Murray’s army march on Dundee.

10. English concerns PASTE IN HANDOUT
Cressingham had hoped the rebellion would die off once the Scottish nobles had finally stopped quibbling and had agreed terms of surrender with the English at Irvine by 8th August 1297.
Letters to Edward from Hugh Cressingham reveal the disintegration of the occupations administration in Scotland. By 24th July, 1297, he wrote:
“Sire, let it not be displeasing to you, but by far the greater part of your counties of the realm of Scotland are still unprovided for with keepers, (due to either) death, sieges or imprisonment; and in some counties the Scots have established and placed bailiffs and ministers, so that no county is in proper order excepting Berwick and Roxburgh and this only lately.”
The quote is taken from a letter by Cressingham sent to Edward I in 1297.
The level of organisation behind the revolt of 1297 can only have come from an aristocratic element. With the authority of at least two earls behind them, Wallace and Murray began issuing writs in the name of King John and continued with their siege of Dundee. This was real and direct opposition to English rule in Scotland.
Hugh Cressingham: Starting to freak out…

11. Why revolt?
The murder of a sheriff, combined with the attack on Ormesby strongly suggests that there was fierce revulsion throughout Scotland against the experience of the intensive Edwardian government.
Opposition to Edward’s regime itself, a reaction for demands for military service overseas and preparation for war with France all unleashed deeply resented forms of taxation of the Scottish people, including compulsory seizure and sale of wool.
That’s Baa-rmy!: John McSnow was stunned at the price of wool this year. How was he going to afford new woolly cloaks for Morag and the bairns?

12. Aims
Wallace made no attempt to seize the government of Scotland for himself. He shared leadership of Scotland with Murray until Murray’s death.
His consistent aim was the liberation of the kingdom and its rightful king – John Balliol.
Only four writs and charters issued by Wallace survive. Few as they are, they are enough to prove that Wallace regarded himself as ruling on behalf of King John.
The loyal subject: Wallace was Balliol’s man – for better or worse.

13. Today’s ‘Big Question’
Take note of the question below in your jotter and write an answer drawing upon the notes you have taken today. Complete for homework if not finished in class:
The ‘capitulation at Irvine’ has long been seen as a humiliating failure for the nobles of Scotland – an event which saw leadership of the resistance pass to lower ranking men. Based on the evidence you have, how far could it be argued that the nobles did indeed play an ongoing part in the rebellion of 1297 after Irvine?
What a lovely helmet: Wallace always wore protection when going in for it.