Why did Robert the Bruce succeed in rebelling against England when William Wallace failed only a few years earlier?
In: Other
One factor is that Wallace had to deal with Edward I who was probably the most formidable king of England since William the Conqueror while the Bruce mostly
had to deal with Edward II who is generally regarded as one of the weakest kings England ever had.
At this time Scotland were a feudal society. You had feudal lords governing the land, collecting taxes in the form of food, weapons, soldiers and defensive buildings (castles). They then decide which army to give these taxes to. So in order to rule over a larger land you need to be favored by the feudal lords.
William Wallace were a lesser noble. We do not even know who his father were. And his last name literally translates to “foreigner”. That would make it very hard for him to gather men, weapons and supplies to fight the English. In fact the English King is able to raise larger armies from the Scottish nobles then Wallace were. However Robert the Bruce were much better connected in the Scottish noble houses. He was a descendant from the last liked Scottish King and had lots of family relationships with the noble houses. And it sounds like he were much better diplomatically skilled then Wallace.
Just some speculation on my part but it does sound like most of the War of Independence were Scottish nobles fighting among themselves, both diplomatically and on the battlefield, about who should be the next King of Scotland. This was kind of how England got involved in the first place as they could back one of the candidates making them win. But when they lost the support of the Scottish feudal lords it was just a question of who they could gather behind. William Wallace probably figured that his only chance of becoming a King was by beating the English with a lesser army by himself. He was not from an old Scottish noble house and had no rights to the throne unless he won the war by himself. When Robert the Bruce started his rebellion most of the infighting between the Scottish nobles had subsided and there were only a couple of potential candidates for the title left. Most of the feudal lords were therefore behind him and it was just a question of how and if rather then who. This is how Robert were able to lose his entire army, hide in various Scottish castles and rebuild his army to its former size. He did not need the tactical skills of William.
Wallace was dealing with a stronger English king with greater battlefield prowess than Bruce.
Bruce’s success owes a huge deal to his military victory at Bannockburn, which was a loss the English could have wholly avoided, but also thanks to Bruce being a better military tactician than Wallace, particularly in the use of his pikemen.
William Wallace undoubtedly had many smaller scale successes but his one big victory against England in a large scale battle was Stirling Bridge. He’s not in Braveheart but Wallace actually shared command here with Andrew de Moray, who led a successful guerilla campaign in the North of Scotland. De Moray was wounded in the battle and later died. Wallace was in full command for the Battle of Falkirk, which he lost, ultimately ending his campaign.
It’s hard to verify, but the commonly accepted wisdom is that whilst Wallace was undoubtedly a great warrior and leader, de Moray was the “brains”, and the better general / commander. And that his loss at Stirling was fatal for Wallace’s campaign.
Also, as mentioned, Wallace was up against a fully fit Edward I, who was a formidable and experienced opponent.
Robert the Bruce was an incredibly skilled Knight but also an exceptional tactician, strategist and military leader. He was also up against Edward II, who was nowhere near the leader his father was.
It’s worth noting as well that, if you study Bruce’s success at Bannockburn, he very clearly learned the lesson of Wallace’s defeat at Falkirk.
Latest Answers