Customer Reviews

Stirling Bridge and Falkirk 1297-98: William Wallace's rebellion (Campaign)

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Amateur historian Pete Armstrong provides a good summary of William Wallace's famous rebellion against English rule in Scotland during 1297-1298. The two principle battles of this rebellion were Stirling Bridge and Falkirk, the first a Scottish victory and the second an English victory. Overall, Armstrong provides both insight and detail of this epic phase of the Scottish struggle for independence from English domination.

Stirling Bridge & Falkirk 1297-1298 begins with a nine-page introduction that explains how Scotland's dynastic problems led to English intervention. The sections on opposing commanders and opposing armies are decent, but perhaps not as informative as they could have been (a diagram of tactical unit dispositions might have been helpful). The maps are a bit skimpy in this volume, as there are only four 2-D maps instead of the typical 7-8; they are: Edward I's invasion in 1296, the campaign of 1297, the campaign of Falkirk and the campaigns of 1300-1307. There are also three 3-D "Birds Eye View" maps - two of Stirling Bridge and one of Falkirk. The three battle scenes by Angus McBride depict William Wallace at Stirling, the Scottish attack at Stirling and the English cavalry at Falkirk.

One aspect of this book that is particularly welcome for military historians is the attention that the author devotes to issues such as the terrain over which the battles were fought. Clearly, the restrictive terrain at Stirling Bridge contributed significantly to the English defeat on that battlefield. Similarly, the lack of suitable defensive terrain at Falkirk led to the Scottish defeat. It is also clear that both sides were plagued by logistic problems and the lack of intelligence about enemy movements.

The Osprey Campaign account of the two major battles of William Wallace's rebellion has a solid, authoritative feel to it. Pete Armstrong's text is not particularly elegant and would have benefited from stricter editing, but he more than makes up for this with a thorough knowledge of his subject and an infectious enthusiasm for it.

It makes sense to combine these two battles in one volume because, together with a description of the background and linking events, they constitute an account of Wallace's entire campaign. Little is known about the man himself, so justice can be done to him in a relatively short book like this.

The maps, 2D and 3D, are informative and attractive. The illustrations of battle scenes are excellent, giving a real sense of how things must have looked, minus the mud and blood and guts, of course. The various sketches of seals and coats of arms will be rather too much for most general readers, but those depicting arms and armor should be of interest to everyone.

The Wallace episode is an important and absorbing one in the ancient conflict between English and Scot, rivals as only neighbors can be. It has accreted plenty of mythic elements also, which books like this may help to dispel.

Mr Armstrong does a really nice job covering the two battles between the English and Scots. A compact and informative history. The present day photographs the author provides are great as they provide readers who have not visited the battlefields a good idea of the landscape. There is also good information on visiting the sites at the conclusion of the book. Mr Armstrongs other histories on the medieval Scot-English wars are also recommended e.g. Bannockburn and Otterburn. The artwork of of Mr McBride is of its usual high quality.

My preconceived notions about this conflict I picked up from the movie,"Braveheart",have to be somewhat revised after reading this book.Mainly the equipment aspect,seeing that William Wallace would have probably worn a full suit of the latest European style armor imported from the "land of the Franks".The tartans he wears in Braveheart give Mel more the folksy hero look I'll admit,but in actual combat who's looking to be a "folkhero".Wallaces' army from my read of this pamphlet style book,was alot more organized and while there were some"Bezerkers" in his ranks alot more of them would have been equipped European style aping their French sympathies.Rather than a bunch of outraged natives defending their turf,Wallace's army appears organized and capable of pulling off a well executed trap and getting there"firstist with the mostest",beforwe the English could fully deploy their forces.Excellent maps and overhead views.Great artwork as always with Wallace in full armor rather than bluish and kilted.
King Edward the First was tied up in continental politics at the time of Stirling Bridge and so the English command at the battle was left to a subordinate,who bungled the affair.In the second part of this Osprey book,the Battle of Falkirk,Edward(Longshanks)the First was present and what a difference as the Scots were defeated.This makes the 4th book on the Scottish/English wars I've read in the Osprey series and there are even a few more I haven't yet read.I'd hoped to see and understand the origin of this conflict but I've concluded it's probably prehistoric when pre-Picts said they were tired of being bossed by ancestors of McRiley's,(something like that)!

This Osprey title examines two of William Wallace's most climatic battles, both of which are portrayed (entertainingly but inaccurately) in the movie Braveheart. It does service to the most heroic battles in the history, and indeed the mythology, of Scotland.

Of the several campaign titles I have read, I found this one to be the most interesting and appealingly presented. In the usual format it begins by summarizing the events that led to Stirling Bridge-starting with the scandalous yet accidental demise of King Alexander III of Scotland in 1286, and the subsequent efforts by Edward I ('Longshanks') of England to subdue the Scots. It then gives a summarized chronology, and then goes on to profile the commanders on both sides, including the ruthless King Edward, the mediocre John de Warenne, the obese and oppressive Hugh Cressingham, and the infamous William Wallace and his compatriot Andrew de Moray (who is, like many of these people, completely left out in Braveheart).

The armies are next detailed. They were surprisingly similar in composition-and the Scots were mail clad halberdiers and pikemen, rather than painted warriors wearing kilts and not much else (the three plates by Angus McBride excellently illustrate the soldiery of both sides-and makes Wallace into the knight he was likely armed as). The events leading up to the battles, and the battles themselves are discussed in clear detail, and the history of Scotland 1298-1314 is summed up as a conclusion.

Altogether, it is an excellent source on these two great battles in Scottish history, and the brilliant (and indeed freedom-loving and arrogant) warlord who led them.

This reader is a big Osprey Publishing fan. I've rarely ran into a bad Osprey title and they go out of their way to give a reader quite a bit of information for the size of the book. So, bottom line up front, this book is worth it.

This book is hardly 100 pages. In the book is a chronology of events from 1286 to 1307. What surprised me was the relative short time the English ruled Scotland over that time period. It was mostly Edward's campaign aided by a few corrupt Scottish lords. Then this book has a good index. So, one can use it for some basic research. What is surprising is the author has quite a few primary resources. Next, there are lots of maps of both Scottland and then a side drawing with reliefs of the battle areas. There are two of these maps of Sterling Bridge and only one of Falkirk. Honestly, you need two maps to see what is going on at Sterling. Basically, the English get stupid and divide their forces in front of the enemy. In 90% of all military operations that leads to disaster. To explain the rather strange behavior of the English Army two maps are needed. Falkirk is a straight forward battle which is merely a flanking movement. Only one map is needed for that.

I did enjoy the history of the book. O.K. Most of us have seen "Braveheart" and we want to learn the truth of William Wallace. The truth of the matter is William Wallaces wife is murdered by an English Official. Wallace murders the official in return. Wallace and a good ally, Murray organize a rebellion in the country.

The author shows the reader lots of pictures of present Sterling bridge, which is long since passed. The many pictures gives a reader a good feel for the countryside. Also, if one ever wants to do a trip to Scotland, you will sort of know the area.

Wallace wins the battle but Murray dies. At this time the English under Edwards leadership does decide to more against the Scotts in a much more organized fashion. The strange thing to note are the logistics problems of Edward. Had Wallace been a little more offensive minded he could have cut off the English supplies and starvation would have ruined Edward's army. As it happens, Wallace's position is betrayed by fellow Scotts. Edward has excellent tactics against the Scotts at Falkirk. Edward uses two things against the Scotts. The Heavy horse crushes the west (left facing the English) flank of the Scottish Schiltrons. Archers and stone throwers (not known if they are slingers) smash holes in the ranks of the Schiltrons. Then the English infantry and cavarly envelope the Schiltrons. The Scottish Schiltrons in operation sound quite a bit like a 300 AD era Greek Phalinx and work as well when flanked.

After Falkirk Wallace flees the battle area and becomes a fugitive in his own nation. The book describes Edwards conquest of the rest of Scotland. It is done with both a carrot and a stick. About half of the area is taken by force of little more than an armed bridade of 1000 men. The rest of the area agrees to terms and Edward is more than happy to give liberal surrender terms.

Eventually Wallace is betrayed by fellow Scotts, given over to the English captors, and his execution does somewhat follow what the movie shows.

But the book does a great job of illustrating how the soldiers looked in the lavish pictures that can be found in the book. Instead of looking like "neo-Roman-era" Pict warriors, the Scottish warriors wore uniforms that were yellow and colorful.

The map surprised me on the small size on the Scottish battle area. Now, during the American Civil War there was hundreds of miles between some of the battles. The battles of Falkirk and Sterlings are not even 15 miles apart.

I endorse this book. Now, why not a five star? Well, this book is a tad expensive and the feeling should be that one should get more for their money. Next, I do wish some scale had been given to the three "3-D" views of the battle areas. I suspect they were hardly 1.5 kilometers in size but the book does not say. Next, the author uses modern military symbols to show the army groups. Well, 6,000 foot soldier isn't an Army group. At best it's a Brigade or a Division (-). So, those two items cost it a star.

But the book is well worth it. I guess the most sad thing to find out is the somewhat acidic soil and wet weather has destroyed all physical evidence of the battles.