Edward I reshaped English law, conquered Wales, and fought bitterly to impose his authority on Scotland—but what kind of king was he? David Pilling examines the justice, ambition, and ruthlessness behind one of medieval England’s most formidable rulers.
By David Pilling
Edward I of England (r. 1272–1307), otherwise called “Longshanks” or “The Hammer of the Scots,” is one of the most controversial rulers in British history. Much of this controversy stems from Edward’s efforts to impose English rule on Wales and Scotland. In Wales he was successful, albeit at great cost, but his Scottish wars triggered centuries of conflict and mutual antipathy.
On the domestic front, Edward was traditionally credited with implementing major reforms in law and administration. More recent historians, however, have accused him of straining his kingdom’s resources to the limit and dragging England to the brink of civil war. Outside academia, popular impressions of Edward have been shaped by films such as Braveheart (1995) and Outlaw King (2018), in which he is caricatured as a villain.
Yet what kind of ruler was Edward really? Stripped of later interpretations and modern perceptions, how might we define his style of kingship? Did he live up to contemporary ideals of a “great king”, or was he perceived as a tyrant?
Before the Crown: Rebellion and Broken Oaths
Portrait in Westminster Abbey, thought to be of Edward I
Edward’s kingship was partly shaped by the harsh experiences of his youth. He endured a difficult political apprenticeship, during which he did not always distinguish himself. His father, Henry III (1207–1272), was locked in a battle of wills with Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester (1208–1265), which degenerated into civil war.
Edward switched sides and, at one point, was suspected of plotting to depose his father. He became the subject of a satirical poem, The Song of Lewes, which lampooned him as a devious oath-breaker.
The poem was a hostile propaganda tract composed by Edward’s enemies. A more positive picture emerges from his early administration of Gascony and the lordship of Chester. Here, he demonstrated the attention to detail and concern for justice that would characterise his early kingship. A statement in a private letter to one of his officers at Chester is revealing:
If on the account of the influence of anyone, common justice is denied to any one of our subjects by us or our bailiffs, we lose the favour of God and man and our lordship is belittled.
After Simon de Montfort’s defeat in 1265, Edward’s public reputation improved. English chroniclers, impressed by his energetic leadership against the surviving Montfortian rebels, described him as a great soldier. His decision to go on crusade in 1270 further enhanced his reputation. Although Edward achieved little in the Holy Land, he could boast, unlike most of his peers, of having actually been there.
A New King in No Hurry to Come Home
Early fourteenth-century manuscript initial showing Edward and his wife Eleanor
During his return journey in 1272, Edward learned of his father’s death. He did not hurry home. Instead, he chose to deal with a revolt in Aquitaine, the last substantial territory of the former Angevin Empire. Once he had quelled the disturbance, he unsuccessfully attempted to seize control of Limousin, north of Gascony.
His preoccupation with continental affairs, when he was urgently needed in England, casts an interesting light on his priorities. He was as much Duke of Aquitaine—a grand seigneur of France—as King of England.
When Edward finally arrived in England in August 1274, he faced considerable challenges. Much of the kingdom was unsettled, with revolts in the western and northern counties. The recent civil wars had impoverished the country. There was also trouble in the Welsh Marches, where Prince Llywelyn ap Gruffudd of Wales (1223–1282) was engaged in conflict with the Marcher lords.
Edward tackled these problems with great energy. At his coronation, he declared his intentions by plucking the crown from his head and swearing never to wear it again until he had recovered all the rights and franchises lost by his ancestors.
One of his first actions was to demand the restoration of certain lands in France still owed under the Treaty of Paris of 1259. In striking contrast to later Anglo-French hostility, negotiations with Philip III (1245–1285) were amicable. They concluded with the Treaty of Amiens in 1279, under which Edward recovered some lands and accepted a pension in place of others.
The King Who Put His Kingdom Under Investigation
At the same time, Edward concentrated on domestic reform. From 1274, royal officers toured the kingdom, hearing complaints about corruption and oppression. Their findings were recorded in the Hundred Rolls, the product of a vast government inquiry. The project was eventually shelved as too unwieldy, but its records remain an invaluable source of information.
More constructive was Edward’s programme of legislation, which repealed outdated laws and introduced new ones. Many of these reforms, including the Freedom of Elections Act, formed the basis of English government for centuries to come.
Edward’s personal involvement in lawmaking has been questioned, partly because of a lack of evidence. Nevertheless, the preamble to a minor piece of legislation, the Statute of Bigamy, demonstrates his participation.
New legislation was drafted by professional lawyers and then presented to the king and council for discussion. Nothing became law without royal approval. Edward debated legislation with his advisers, but his interest extended beyond these discussions. He had an eye for talented servants, including Robert Burnell and Francesco Accursi, whom he entrusted with drafting laws.
At times, Edward intervened personally. On one occasion, he presided over an inquisition after discovering bodies in the woods between Canterbury and Dover. On another, he ordered a jury to provide him “with a good writ” before allowing its members to leave a court session. Edward was closely involved in his administration, even if he left the finer details to others.
“By What Warrant?”: Bringing the Barons to Heel
Edward depicted around 1320 in a copy of Statutes of England – Bodleian Library MS. Rawl. C. 292 fol. 9r
To recover lost franchises, Edward established the Quo Warranto inquiry, its name meaning “by what warrant?” It required English landholders to prove their historical rights and was inevitably unpopular. One furious baron allegedly waved his ancestors’ rusty sword at Edward’s officers, declaring that it was his warrant. The inquiry also inspired a popular jingle:
The king he wants to get our gold, The queen would like our lands to hold, And the writ Quo Warranto, Will give us all enough to do!
Edward was sensible enough not to pursue the policy too far. Very few estates were actually taken from their holders, and in 1290, Quo Warranto ended in compromise.
His real purpose appears to have been to warn his magnates. There would be no return to the chaos of his father’s reign. The crown’s authority was supreme—in theory, if not always in practice.
Gascony: Building Towns and Defending Royal Rights
Edward’s refinement of law and administration was also evident in Gascony. Thanks to his youthful experience, he knew and understood the duchy better than any other Plantagenet ruler. He reformed local laws and customs, jealously guarded his rights against French encroachment, and appointed a succession of capable seneschals.
His reign also witnessed the construction of more than fifty new bastide towns in the duchy. Most were intended to increase the revenues of a poor, semi-rural province. To that end, Edward and his nobles encouraged the system of paréage, under which the profits of new market towns were shared among the participating parties.
Ireland and Wales: From Submission to Conquest
A late medieval depiction of King Alexander III of Scotland on the left with Llywelyn, Prince of Wales on the right as guests to King Edward I of England at the sitting of an English parliament.
Ireland ranked lowest among Edward’s priorities, although he did not entirely neglect the lordship. Early in his reign, he appointed a group of household knights, separate from the English administration in Dublin, to oversee the judiciary.
Edward never visited Ireland. Instead, he relied on loyal servants, including Thomas de Clare and Geoffrey Geneville, to maintain a tolerable degree of order. He primarily regarded Ireland as a useful source of food and manpower for his wars elsewhere.
Edward is remembered as a warrior king. His early campaigns, however, focused less on conquest than on enforcing royal authority. In 1276, his armies fought simultaneous campaigns in Wales and Ireland, targeting Prince Llywelyn, who had repeatedly refused to swear fealty, and the rebellious MacMurrough clan in Wicklow.
Edward’s armies pursued a strategy of containment, starving their enemies on both sides of the Irish Sea into surrender. In both cases, the leaders were pardoned. The king’s attitude hardened, however, when fresh revolts broke out in 1282. The MacMurrough leaders were trapped and beheaded, as was Prince Llywelyn a few months later. Llywelyn’s brother Dafydd, once Edward’s ally, was savagely executed at Shrewsbury in 1283.
Castles, Courts, and the Subjugation of Wales
The situation in Wales was more complex than it might appear. Llywelyn was killed by the English lords of the Welsh Marches, who also posed a threat to the king. Edward was determined to establish his supremacy.
After 1283, he embarked on a sustained campaign to curb the Marcher lords’ power. This culminated in a famous trial at Abergavenny in 1291, where the powerful earls of Gloucester and Hereford were sentenced to imprisonment and heavy fines. They were soon released, but Edward had made his point. The king’s writ now extended throughout his realm, even into the semi-independent Marches.
This coincided with the subjugation and reorganisation of Wales. Edward’s Statute of Wales of 1284 was a relatively statesmanlike document. Although some aspects of Welsh criminal law were abolished, elements of Welsh civil law were preserved, and Welsh women were permitted to have dower for the first time.
Nevertheless, the oppressive military character of Edward’s conquest, enforced by a chain of mighty castles, was unmistakable. His administration was corrupt and exploitative, although this was not his intention, and it provoked a major Welsh revolt in 1294. Despite this resistance, Edward’s eventual domination of Wales was complete.
The Peacemaker Drawn into a Costly War
On the Continent, Edward enjoyed a strong reputation as an arbiter and peacemaker. This reflected his desire to lead the Christian kingdoms on another crusade to the Holy Land. Such an undertaking required peace in Europe, so he tried to avoid becoming entangled in foreign wars.
In 1294, however, his cousin, the king of France, unexpectedly duped him into a war over Gascony. Edward was forced to fight a ruinously expensive rearguard action. The duchy was eventually recovered, but the damage and financial cost to both kingdoms were immense.
Scotland: The Conquest That Would Not Hold
John Balliol kneels before Edward I – British Library MS Royal 20 C VII fol. 28r
The Scottish wars were another matter. From 1292, Edward sought to exploit the vulnerability of the kingless Scots to impose his overlordship. His expansionist policy was hardly unusual, but its consequences were disastrous.
Edward’s arrogant conduct drove the Scots into revolt, beginning a bitter and prolonged war. Despite his great victory at Falkirk in 1298, he had to lead a series of gruelling expeditions across the border.
The conflict appeared to end with a negotiated surrender at Strathord in 1304, after which Edward included some Scots in his new administration. Yet he revealed his vindictive side in the gruesome execution of William Wallace (1270–1305), the celebrated Scottish resistance leader.
When the Scots found a new leader in Robert the Bruce (1274–1329), Edward had to acknowledge that his settlement had failed. Old and ill, he directed a brutal winter campaign from his sickbed but died within sight of the border in 1307.
Great King or Ruthless Autocrat?
Edward I of England depicted in an 1297–98. The image comes from a memoranda roll held by The National Archives (E368/69m 54d).
Edward’s kingship was defined by conflicting ideals. On the one hand, he demonstrated an undeniable commitment to law, justice, and strong central authority. On the other, he was an aggressive interventionist, grimly determined to enforce his “rights”.
He was not unwilling to compromise, but he was prepared to risk everything in pursuit of conquest. He left a heavy burden of debt and unfinished warfare to his successor, Edward II (1284–1327), who proved wholly unequal to the task.
Yet there is a danger in underrating Edward I. Whatever his excesses and failures, he embodied contemporary ideals of kingship. A successful king had to be a competent lawmaker, military commander, and administrator. Edward could not be dismissed as a failure in any of these roles.
His own subjects did not condemn his appetite for warfare, even if they objected to paying for it. We may disapprove of a medieval autocrat’s greed and violence, but these belonged to the political culture of his age. Our values were not theirs.
David Pilling is a writer and researcher, passionate about history, especially the medieval era. He has a deep interest in the Byzantine Empire, post-Roman Britain, and the British and Irish Civil Wars, and writes both historical fiction and non-fiction. You can find him on X/Twitter, Substack, Facebook, YouTube and Goodreads.
Edward I reshaped English law, conquered Wales, and fought bitterly to impose his authority on Scotland—but what kind of king was he? David Pilling examines the justice, ambition, and ruthlessness behind one of medieval England’s most formidable rulers.
By David Pilling
Edward I of England (r. 1272–1307), otherwise called “Longshanks” or “The Hammer of the Scots,” is one of the most controversial rulers in British history. Much of this controversy stems from Edward’s efforts to impose English rule on Wales and Scotland. In Wales he was successful, albeit at great cost, but his Scottish wars triggered centuries of conflict and mutual antipathy.
On the domestic front, Edward was traditionally credited with implementing major reforms in law and administration. More recent historians, however, have accused him of straining his kingdom’s resources to the limit and dragging England to the brink of civil war. Outside academia, popular impressions of Edward have been shaped by films such as Braveheart (1995) and Outlaw King (2018), in which he is caricatured as a villain.
Yet what kind of ruler was Edward really? Stripped of later interpretations and modern perceptions, how might we define his style of kingship? Did he live up to contemporary ideals of a “great king”, or was he perceived as a tyrant?
Before the Crown: Rebellion and Broken Oaths
Edward’s kingship was partly shaped by the harsh experiences of his youth. He endured a difficult political apprenticeship, during which he did not always distinguish himself. His father, Henry III (1207–1272), was locked in a battle of wills with Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester (1208–1265), which degenerated into civil war.
Edward switched sides and, at one point, was suspected of plotting to depose his father. He became the subject of a satirical poem, The Song of Lewes, which lampooned him as a devious oath-breaker.
The poem was a hostile propaganda tract composed by Edward’s enemies. A more positive picture emerges from his early administration of Gascony and the lordship of Chester. Here, he demonstrated the attention to detail and concern for justice that would characterise his early kingship. A statement in a private letter to one of his officers at Chester is revealing:
If on the account of the influence of anyone, common justice is denied to any one of our subjects by us or our bailiffs, we lose the favour of God and man and our lordship is belittled.
After Simon de Montfort’s defeat in 1265, Edward’s public reputation improved. English chroniclers, impressed by his energetic leadership against the surviving Montfortian rebels, described him as a great soldier. His decision to go on crusade in 1270 further enhanced his reputation. Although Edward achieved little in the Holy Land, he could boast, unlike most of his peers, of having actually been there.
A New King in No Hurry to Come Home
During his return journey in 1272, Edward learned of his father’s death. He did not hurry home. Instead, he chose to deal with a revolt in Aquitaine, the last substantial territory of the former Angevin Empire. Once he had quelled the disturbance, he unsuccessfully attempted to seize control of Limousin, north of Gascony.
His preoccupation with continental affairs, when he was urgently needed in England, casts an interesting light on his priorities. He was as much Duke of Aquitaine—a grand seigneur of France—as King of England.
When Edward finally arrived in England in August 1274, he faced considerable challenges. Much of the kingdom was unsettled, with revolts in the western and northern counties. The recent civil wars had impoverished the country. There was also trouble in the Welsh Marches, where Prince Llywelyn ap Gruffudd of Wales (1223–1282) was engaged in conflict with the Marcher lords.
Edward tackled these problems with great energy. At his coronation, he declared his intentions by plucking the crown from his head and swearing never to wear it again until he had recovered all the rights and franchises lost by his ancestors.
One of his first actions was to demand the restoration of certain lands in France still owed under the Treaty of Paris of 1259. In striking contrast to later Anglo-French hostility, negotiations with Philip III (1245–1285) were amicable. They concluded with the Treaty of Amiens in 1279, under which Edward recovered some lands and accepted a pension in place of others.
The King Who Put His Kingdom Under Investigation
At the same time, Edward concentrated on domestic reform. From 1274, royal officers toured the kingdom, hearing complaints about corruption and oppression. Their findings were recorded in the Hundred Rolls, the product of a vast government inquiry. The project was eventually shelved as too unwieldy, but its records remain an invaluable source of information.
More constructive was Edward’s programme of legislation, which repealed outdated laws and introduced new ones. Many of these reforms, including the Freedom of Elections Act, formed the basis of English government for centuries to come.
Edward’s personal involvement in lawmaking has been questioned, partly because of a lack of evidence. Nevertheless, the preamble to a minor piece of legislation, the Statute of Bigamy, demonstrates his participation.
New legislation was drafted by professional lawyers and then presented to the king and council for discussion. Nothing became law without royal approval. Edward debated legislation with his advisers, but his interest extended beyond these discussions. He had an eye for talented servants, including Robert Burnell and Francesco Accursi, whom he entrusted with drafting laws.
At times, Edward intervened personally. On one occasion, he presided over an inquisition after discovering bodies in the woods between Canterbury and Dover. On another, he ordered a jury to provide him “with a good writ” before allowing its members to leave a court session. Edward was closely involved in his administration, even if he left the finer details to others.
“By What Warrant?”: Bringing the Barons to Heel
To recover lost franchises, Edward established the Quo Warranto inquiry, its name meaning “by what warrant?” It required English landholders to prove their historical rights and was inevitably unpopular. One furious baron allegedly waved his ancestors’ rusty sword at Edward’s officers, declaring that it was his warrant. The inquiry also inspired a popular jingle:
The king he wants to get our gold,
The queen would like our lands to hold,
And the writ Quo Warranto,
Will give us all enough to do!
Edward was sensible enough not to pursue the policy too far. Very few estates were actually taken from their holders, and in 1290, Quo Warranto ended in compromise.
His real purpose appears to have been to warn his magnates. There would be no return to the chaos of his father’s reign. The crown’s authority was supreme—in theory, if not always in practice.
Gascony: Building Towns and Defending Royal Rights
Edward’s refinement of law and administration was also evident in Gascony. Thanks to his youthful experience, he knew and understood the duchy better than any other Plantagenet ruler. He reformed local laws and customs, jealously guarded his rights against French encroachment, and appointed a succession of capable seneschals.
His reign also witnessed the construction of more than fifty new bastide towns in the duchy. Most were intended to increase the revenues of a poor, semi-rural province. To that end, Edward and his nobles encouraged the system of paréage, under which the profits of new market towns were shared among the participating parties.
Ireland and Wales: From Submission to Conquest
Ireland ranked lowest among Edward’s priorities, although he did not entirely neglect the lordship. Early in his reign, he appointed a group of household knights, separate from the English administration in Dublin, to oversee the judiciary.
Edward never visited Ireland. Instead, he relied on loyal servants, including Thomas de Clare and Geoffrey Geneville, to maintain a tolerable degree of order. He primarily regarded Ireland as a useful source of food and manpower for his wars elsewhere.
Edward is remembered as a warrior king. His early campaigns, however, focused less on conquest than on enforcing royal authority. In 1276, his armies fought simultaneous campaigns in Wales and Ireland, targeting Prince Llywelyn, who had repeatedly refused to swear fealty, and the rebellious MacMurrough clan in Wicklow.
Edward’s armies pursued a strategy of containment, starving their enemies on both sides of the Irish Sea into surrender. In both cases, the leaders were pardoned. The king’s attitude hardened, however, when fresh revolts broke out in 1282. The MacMurrough leaders were trapped and beheaded, as was Prince Llywelyn a few months later. Llywelyn’s brother Dafydd, once Edward’s ally, was savagely executed at Shrewsbury in 1283.
Castles, Courts, and the Subjugation of Wales
The situation in Wales was more complex than it might appear. Llywelyn was killed by the English lords of the Welsh Marches, who also posed a threat to the king. Edward was determined to establish his supremacy.
After 1283, he embarked on a sustained campaign to curb the Marcher lords’ power. This culminated in a famous trial at Abergavenny in 1291, where the powerful earls of Gloucester and Hereford were sentenced to imprisonment and heavy fines. They were soon released, but Edward had made his point. The king’s writ now extended throughout his realm, even into the semi-independent Marches.
This coincided with the subjugation and reorganisation of Wales. Edward’s Statute of Wales of 1284 was a relatively statesmanlike document. Although some aspects of Welsh criminal law were abolished, elements of Welsh civil law were preserved, and Welsh women were permitted to have dower for the first time.
Nevertheless, the oppressive military character of Edward’s conquest, enforced by a chain of mighty castles, was unmistakable. His administration was corrupt and exploitative, although this was not his intention, and it provoked a major Welsh revolt in 1294. Despite this resistance, Edward’s eventual domination of Wales was complete.
The Peacemaker Drawn into a Costly War
On the Continent, Edward enjoyed a strong reputation as an arbiter and peacemaker. This reflected his desire to lead the Christian kingdoms on another crusade to the Holy Land. Such an undertaking required peace in Europe, so he tried to avoid becoming entangled in foreign wars.
In 1294, however, his cousin, the king of France, unexpectedly duped him into a war over Gascony. Edward was forced to fight a ruinously expensive rearguard action. The duchy was eventually recovered, but the damage and financial cost to both kingdoms were immense.
Scotland: The Conquest That Would Not Hold
The Scottish wars were another matter. From 1292, Edward sought to exploit the vulnerability of the kingless Scots to impose his overlordship. His expansionist policy was hardly unusual, but its consequences were disastrous.
Edward’s arrogant conduct drove the Scots into revolt, beginning a bitter and prolonged war. Despite his great victory at Falkirk in 1298, he had to lead a series of gruelling expeditions across the border.
The conflict appeared to end with a negotiated surrender at Strathord in 1304, after which Edward included some Scots in his new administration. Yet he revealed his vindictive side in the gruesome execution of William Wallace (1270–1305), the celebrated Scottish resistance leader.
When the Scots found a new leader in Robert the Bruce (1274–1329), Edward had to acknowledge that his settlement had failed. Old and ill, he directed a brutal winter campaign from his sickbed but died within sight of the border in 1307.
Great King or Ruthless Autocrat?
Edward’s kingship was defined by conflicting ideals. On the one hand, he demonstrated an undeniable commitment to law, justice, and strong central authority. On the other, he was an aggressive interventionist, grimly determined to enforce his “rights”.
He was not unwilling to compromise, but he was prepared to risk everything in pursuit of conquest. He left a heavy burden of debt and unfinished warfare to his successor, Edward II (1284–1327), who proved wholly unequal to the task.
Yet there is a danger in underrating Edward I. Whatever his excesses and failures, he embodied contemporary ideals of kingship. A successful king had to be a competent lawmaker, military commander, and administrator. Edward could not be dismissed as a failure in any of these roles.
His own subjects did not condemn his appetite for warfare, even if they objected to paying for it. We may disapprove of a medieval autocrat’s greed and violence, but these belonged to the political culture of his age. Our values were not theirs.
David Pilling is a writer and researcher, passionate about history, especially the medieval era. He has a deep interest in the Byzantine Empire, post-Roman Britain, and the British and Irish Civil Wars, and writes both historical fiction and non-fiction. You can find him on X/Twitter, Substack, Facebook, YouTube and Goodreads.
Further Readings:
Prestwich, Michael. Edward I (Yale English Monarchs). Yale University Press, 1997.
Watson, Fiona. Under the Hammer: Edward I and Scotland. Birlinn Ltd, 2022.
King, Andy, and Andrew M. Spencer, eds. Edward I: New Interpretations. York Medieval Press, 2020.
Subscribe to Medievalverse
Related Posts