Arms and the Man: how the Scots who bled with Wallace fought in Braveheart and in History
By Gwynne F. T. Jones
Journal of the Sydney Society for Scottish History, Vol.5 (1997)
Introduction: Scotland’s war of independence was, like most wars, decided militarily i.e. by the military success of Scots armies. The ability to raise armies to drive out the English was therefore crucial. In feudal times in most of Europe armies were normally raised and centred on the feudal landholding nobility. In Scotland in the abnormal period of Wallace’s career many or most of the nobility were not strongly, if at all, committed to the cause that Wallace championed. This fact greatly affected the composition and armament of the Scots forces in Wallace’s battles. In consequence two things were necessary-popular support and making do without the normal contingent of mounted nobles, often the most important and sometimes even the largest part of a medieval army.
Advertisement
In all ages before modem times, the only two basic types of soldier were the mounted (in medieval times nobles and their personal followers) and those on foot; and virtually the only subdivisions were between heavy-armed men and light-armed. Because so few Scots nobles took Wallace’s side, his armies were basically of infantry. By contrast, Edward I’s armies in Scotland always had a strong cavalry element. The whole Scots nobility mounted and armoured for battle would have been relatively few against even that part of the English chivalry that Edward I could spare from his affairs in France.
The infantry in medieval Western Europe was divided into two types – those who could fight only at close quarters and hand-to-hand and those who could shoot (or hurl) missiles at opponents, at least for part of the conflict, for distances up to 200 or 300 paces. The Scots, for no doubt sufficient social, economic, cultural or traditional reasons, had relatively few missile-men and those armed with the relatively short Scots bow. Crossbowmen apparently were not present in significant numbers.
Arms and the Man: how the Scots who bled with Wallace fought in Braveheart and in History
By Gwynne F. T. Jones
Journal of the Sydney Society for Scottish History, Vol.5 (1997)
Introduction: Scotland’s war of independence was, like most wars, decided militarily i.e. by the military success of Scots armies. The ability to raise armies to drive out the English was therefore crucial. In feudal times in most of Europe armies were normally raised and centred on the feudal landholding nobility. In Scotland in the abnormal period of Wallace’s career many or most of the nobility were not strongly, if at all, committed to the cause that Wallace championed. This fact greatly affected the composition and armament of the Scots forces in Wallace’s battles. In consequence two things were necessary-popular support and making do without the normal contingent of mounted nobles, often the most important and sometimes even the largest part of a medieval army.
In all ages before modem times, the only two basic types of soldier were the mounted (in medieval times nobles and their personal followers) and those on foot; and virtually the only subdivisions were between heavy-armed men and light-armed. Because so few Scots nobles took Wallace’s side, his armies were basically of infantry. By contrast, Edward I’s armies in Scotland always had a strong cavalry element. The whole Scots nobility mounted and armoured for battle would have been relatively few against even that part of the English chivalry that Edward I could spare from his affairs in France.
The infantry in medieval Western Europe was divided into two types – those who could fight only at close quarters and hand-to-hand and those who could shoot (or hurl) missiles at opponents, at least for part of the conflict, for distances up to 200 or 300 paces. The Scots, for no doubt sufficient social, economic, cultural or traditional reasons, had relatively few missile-men and those armed with the relatively short Scots bow. Crossbowmen apparently were not present in significant numbers.
Click here to read this article from Journal of the Sydney Society for Scottish History
Related Posts
Subscribe to Medievalverse