The Battle of Bannockburn

England and Scotland have never been good neighbours. Since the 11th century ( after the Norman conquest ) the Scottish tried to have their own king and get rid of the English control. The first great Scottish rebel was William Wallace, who defeated the English at Stirling Bridge in 1297, and was known since then as the "Guardian of Scotland".

But the English king was cruel Edward I, called "hammer of the Scots" (also called "Longshanks") He was a man who showed no mercy, a killer king with no scruples. Edward I attacked again next year and finally he defeated Wallace. The rebel decided to "disappear", but after seven years he was betrayed near Glasgow, and judged in London before a king that the Scottish rebel didn't acknowledge. Wallace was sentenced to death.

Fearsome Edward I ordered that Wallace was to be hung, and then quartered and beheaded !! His head was displayed on London Bridge and his mutilated body was sent to Newcastle, Berwick, Stirling and Perth, as a lesson. Edward I thought this was the end of the northern problems, but he was wrong...

After Wallace, two noblemen who had the right to be kings became leaders in rebel Scotland: John "Red"Comyn and Robert the Bruce. And their relationship was never good, on the contrary. Besides, Comyn had very good and important friends in London. Robert the Bruce tried to negotiate with Comyn, and they met in a church in Dumfries, in the south of Scotland: in front of the altar Bruce offered Comyn his lands if he supported him as king of an independent Scotland. Comyn was so angry that Bruce forgot where he was and he stabbed Comyn just there in the church.

Bruce's sacrilegious crime meant that he became an outlaw: Comyn's followers and kinsmen, the English and also the Pope considered him their enemy. He was excommunicated, and In 1307 his possessions were confiscated. Then Bruce decided to approach the most nationalist and anti-English side of the Scots, becoming a second Wallace. More problems for London !

Also in 1307 Edward I died at the age of 68. His 23-year-old son Edward II was a sportsman more than a killer, but he was a very bad warrior. At the beginning he paid little attention to Scotland, and this lack of interest allowed The Bruce to win territories and allies, with his personal magnetism and his intelligence, or fighting in civil wars between clans. Little by little the Bruce was more and more powerful, and meanwhile Edward II didn't give a damn about it. In 1309 the whole of Scotland was on Bruce's side, except Stirling and Edinburgh. He created a Parliament in Saint Andrews, and there he was crowned as Robert I, King of Scotland.

Bruce was not satisfied, and he attacked Edinburgh and the north of England. He conquered cities and castles and forced the English to pay taxes. In 1314, the English castles surrendered to Bruce's troops one after the other. All of them... except Stirling. That fortress was unconquerable !!

In the long Siege of Stirling, the Scots reached a curious agreement with the English in the Castle: they would surrender to the Bruce if Edward's army could not force their way through the Scottish siege and get into the Castle by 24 June 1314, Midsummer Day. It was the definitive challenge to London, because for the first time the English were defied to a pitch battle, after long years of guerrilla tactics in the Scottish Wars of Independence. But it was a serious risk for Scotland, too, if the English won and defeated King Robert I the Bruce.

Edward II didn't think twice: Stirling was the lowest crossing point on the River Forth, and this made it a vital castle for the interests of the English in Scotland. Edward II gathered 20,000 well-trained soldiers who were eager to kill Scots. Against this army, the Bruce had only 7,500 men, 2,000 of which were untrained volunteers. But the fact is that the Scots defeated the powerful English. Why? What happened at the Bannock burn in Stirling?

Go to Part Two

Go to Picture Gallery