How Did Wallace Manipulate The Battle Of Moray's Fight?

When it came to the battle of Stirling Bridge itself, Wallace was a master of guerrilla style combat. This was important to the alliance of Wallace and de Moray, as, “Andrew de Moray possessed military genius and military training… Without the former neither the campaign which made Stirling Bridge possible nor the battle of Stirling Bridge itself would be possible.” The strategy that accompanied de Moray’s experience and Wallace’s fighting style allowed them to manipulate the Battle of Stirling Bridge. The companionship between these two men is what garnered their victory in 1297. It can be argued that the death of de Moray after the battle lost them the battle at Falkirk in 1298. Upon the death of de Moray, Wallace became the sole leader

of the rebellion and was recognized as the cause of Scottish freedom. Wallace is later knighted, though this confirmed event from a number of sources is still not without doubt as it appears to be ‘community appointed’.

There is also evidence in the form of letters that depict Wallace styling himself the ’Guardian of Scotland’ that bear no official declaration. Surrounding the Battle of Stirling Bridge there are questions about the prominence of Wallace in the preparations of the uprising, putting him in a subordinate position below more influential nobles. It can be said as well that the fame that would have been attributed to de Moray had he not died, went to Wallace instead, inflating his involvement in the conflict. There is also the underlying suspicion that the limited role Wallace had in ‘official’ accounts of the wars may not be an effect of distortion over time, but lack of actual involvement itself. From this point onward, it can be seen that there is doubt over how much influence Wallace had and how competent he actually was in battle strategy outside of guerrilla

warfare.
The arguable end of William Wallace’s career occurs only a year following his claim to heroism at Stirling Bridge.

The events of Falkirk in 1298 leave William Wallace a failure in the eyes of his Scottish contemporaries. This failure, for historians, is commonly overlooked as, “there has been a… tendency for commentators to give unstinting praise to Wallace for his conduct at Stirling Bridge and too little credit for his arrangements at Falkirk.” The same effect is seen in literature as writers such as Mrs. Hemans in her memoir only allude to the battle in select lines repeating the motifs ‘blood’ and ‘ground’, avoiding an outright description of the Scot’s defeat. In studying the events at Falkirk, it can be understood that the failure is not only the effect of Wallace’s leadership, but also the disloyalty of his supporters. To the understanding of some, the Battle of Falkirk should never have occurred as, “the tactics there were the antithesis of those which succeeded at Stirling Bridge.” This unfamiliarity for Wallace and his strategy leaves the Scots to be massacred by the English under Edward I. There are discussions of Wallace’s strategy that detail aims to force the English into retreat and from there the battle would be up to the improvisation of

Wallace. This comes across as Wallace’s biggest flaw in battle strategy as he is more intent on improvisation rather than an organized battle. The most redeeming quality in this defeat for Wallace is proof of his ability to train men in discipline. Even when the end was obvious in its approach, the Scots directly under Wallace did not break ranks or flee. The biggest catalyst of the Scottish failure comes in the dubious support from the nobles. It is understood that Wallace was dependent on the aristocracy for support during this battle and previous invasions. The first signs of failure come with the retreat of the cavalry, over which Wallace had not assumed control. This betrayal was then increased tenfold when the English cut down the Scottish archers under John Stewart. Wallace then leaves the battlefield himself, as he must have been aware that his brief career of success had come to an end. This retreat has some ambiguity around it, as there is no reason for his movement detailed in history. It is understood that he had about him a force still capable of fighting the enemy which points to the suggestion that he prepared for such an action. In looking at the Battle of Falkirk it can be understood that the efforts of Wallace were not the only flaw in strategy. There is also evidence that the allies of Wallace were among the means of the cause that triggered their brutal loss at Falkirk. The common understanding of this battle is one that is, “accustomed to thinking of Falkirk as a battle which revealed Wallace’s inadequacies as a military leader.” This can be seen in his failure to adapt to a new playing field as the English retreat fails to occur. Ergo, Wallace’s faith in his own improvisation fails. There is also ambiguity around how prepared he was to retreat from the battle, casting doubt in his faith in the Scottish forces.