Falkirk PODs

I saw "Braveheart" with some friends yesterday and that got me thinking. Here're some PODs I came up with for the Battle of Falkirk...

1) The nobles don't desert. They did in OTL and the movie. What if they hadn't? Could they have distracted or defeated the English cavalry or would they have likely been killed too? What consequences would an English defeat at Falkirk or the destruction of the nobility have?

2) Wallace kills Edward I. In the movie, as everything falls apart, Wallace goes chasing after Edward and his entourage in basically a suicide mission. In the movie, he discovers that Robert the Bruce is fighting for the English and loses all spirit, which, it turns out, isn't historically accurate. WI Wallace somehow managed to kill Edward I in the aftermath of the battle (something tells me the situation didn't occur as in the movie, but perhaps Wallace can sneak into the camp later). Now what? Wallace can survive or die with Edward.

3) Any Scottish victory scenario. I'm sure there're some military history junkies who know more about Falkirk than me on this board. According to some reading, Wallace had no "natural defenses" (at Stirling Bridge, he had the bridge and the river). Perhaps Wallace can meet the English somewhere else? It wouldn't be "Falkirk," but it could occur around the same time.

Any more?

the best "Scottish victory" scenario for falkirk would be to avoid the battle altogether. Edward I's campaign had hitherto been a miserable failure, by the time of falkirk his army was on the point of starvation and he was forced to withdraw without strategic gain even after victory, if Wallace had been able to keep ahead of edward for a week or two longer the English would have been forced to withdraw.

this would leave Wallace in place as national leader, with some chance to better consolidate his rule before the next English invasion.

I like "Braveheart" a lot, but it is incredibly inaccurate; about the only things they got right were the names and who won each battle. The first one was called Stirling bridge for a reason; a bridge played a big part in the battle. You didn't see a bridge in the movie. In Falkirk, a swamp played a big part in the battle, but in the movie it takes place in a big open field. And I'm pretty sure Wallace didn't have a liason with Edward's daugter in law
Still, it was a pretty good movie.
If you want to have Falkirk turn out better for the Scots, remove Edward from the battle; his presence is mainly why Stirling bridge was lost and Falkirk was won. Have him fall too ill to take part, or decide to continue his stay in France; all in all, a pretty simple POD. The Scots may still not win, but I bet they'd do better overall....

David,

A bridge and the English general hysterically demanding that the infantry be "pressed" across the bridge is mentioned in the screenplay. However, either it didn't get into the final cut or I missed it (probably the former, if you didn't see it either).

The bit with the Princess is myth, I concede. I think it's there so that Princess Isabel can tell the dying King Edward that his son will soon be overthrown and that the child that is supposedly the prince's is really Wallace's. Now THAT'S a good way to stick it to the evil old SOB.

I loved Braveheart, favorite movie of all time. But It was incredibly inaccurate.

Regarding Falkirk...

The Nobles desertion or lack there of would have an incredible affect on the outcome of the battle. IIRC the English Cavalry was very badly mauled by Wallace's Skiltrons ( NOTE: Wallace DID NOT have Skiltrons at Stirling Bridge, he did however have Skiltrons at Falkirk) so the Scottish Cavalry wouldn't face much of a challenge from them. Had they not deserted Edward would find his beautiful Welsh Archers slaughtered by the Scottish Cavalry (Think Battle of Stirling in Braveheart) and would be forced to withdraw.

Or...

For another scenario: Edwards Army was made up of a variety of different Races, you had Irish Conscripts, Welsh Bowmen, and English Infantry/ Cavalry. Now during the campaign tensions between the Welsh and the English heated up and the Welsh threatened to defect to Wallace. Edward made hefty concessions to keep them in his Army and that heavilly affected the Battle. Now lets make the tensions a bit tighter and have the Welsh actually follow through. Wallace is attacked and basically Massacres the English holding their forces at bay with his Skiltrons and while leaving the rest to the Welsh.

Now what I'm having a problem with is what would happen after Falkirk...

Even if Wallace defeats Edward, how long would take to prepare another invasion? And, if this fails, one more again, and again, and....

The English are so stubborn sometimes...

Kurt_Steiner said:

Even if Wallace defeats Edward, how long would take to prepare another invasion? And, if this fails, one more again, and again, and....

The English are so stubborn sometimes...

Click to expand...

Yes Scotiish defeat was inevitable, that's why they eventually won the war . . . wait a minute

Remember though, the English had all sorts of issues with their Continental holdings. In the movie, Edward is off in France when Stirling Bridge occurs and the shock of the entire English Army of the North being reamed by the Scots is enough to bring him back.

If the English lose another battle up north, perhaps the French or whoever were impinging on the English dominions there decide to press the advantage.

And remember, Edward was at Falkirk. If the defeat is bad enough, he could die. That could create some interesting situations.

or perhaps the English weren't willing to invest infinite time and resources into conquering a northern kingdom few of them cared about, the weaker side can win an attritional war if they care more

Personally, I thought the movie was historical garbage, and if Robert the Bruce had been remotely the man in real life that we see in the movie, Scotland would never have survived.