Why was Edward I unable to effectively win in Scotland?

So I've been doing some reading on the subject recently (after finding out that apparently my family is related to Robert the Bruce) and I've found Edward I to be a fascinating character. More specifically he was an excellent military leader and a very sound tactician and he really seemed to be a capable governor and a wily politician as well, so I'm wondering why unlike in Wales, he failed to capitalize on his gains.

I understand that John Baliol wasn't the best stooge king, but I'm really not seeing how he didn't manage to do so well in fighting the Scots in comparison to the Welsh.
 
Scotland is bigger, further away (in effect), and he's already spent a lot of money on the castles that secured Wales.

And yet even so he managed to pound Scotland into near-submission.
 
Scotland is bigger, further away (in effect), and he's already spent a lot of money on the castles that secured Wales.

And yet even so he managed to pound Scotland into near-submission.

True, I had forgotten about the sheer ammount of money he spent in Wales. Though I am slightly shocked he gave so little support to the Coym's before he died.

Mind you, the Bruce was one determined bastard.
 
True, I had forgotten about the sheer ammount of money he spent in Wales. Though I am slightly shocked he gave so little support to the Coym's before he died.

Mind you, the Bruce was one determined bastard.

I haven't read as much as I'd like on Edward I's Scottish campaigns, but I imagine not wanting them to be the new problem had something to do with it.
 
I haven't read as much as I'd like on Edward I's Scottish campaigns, but I imagine not wanting them to be the new problem had something to do with it.

Well from further reading thus far it seems money issues, leaning too hard on his client king, then getting sick and dying, really put a cramp in his style.

I for one think had he not died before the campaign started that Scotland could have well been an English vassal state. It's doubtful the Bruce could have survived another such campaign.
 
Lack of funds: he was unable to build a series of castles in Scotland as he had in Wales to tighten his grip there precisely because he had built all those impressive castles in Wales, added, of course, to his town building project in Gascony and England and his Crusade fund building exersizes.

Problems with English Nobles: He had been having major dissagreements with the English Nobles over the extent to which Magna Carter and the Forestry Charter restricted or enables his powers, and he had been forced to reaffirm some of the rules set down by them to recieve financial and military backing for his wars with France and Scotland. Even after the Scot were crushed at Dunbar he could not maintain the good-will of his own nobles because some took offense to how he handed out land as prises for loyal and effective services and simply took their men home.

Continued Scottish Resistance: the Scottish Nobles never willingly accepted Longshanks' domination and even when forced to accept it they plotted and schemed to overturn it and regain their independence. The Scottish clergy, largely, supported the Scottish cause and plotted secretly for Longshanks' downfall.
 
True, I had forgotten about the sheer ammount of money he spent in Wales. Though I am slightly shocked he gave so little support to the Coym's before he died.

Mind you, the Bruce was one determined bastard.

Before John 'the Red' Comyn was killed in 1306 Scotland had been at peace for almost a year and there was no open signs of any coming rebellion. When Longshanks heard of the Red Comyn's murder his immediate response was confusion, followed by feelings of betrayal, then a fury so violent that it crippled him. Within weeks of coming to understand the full scale of the Bruce's treachery he had gone from the old, indomitable warrior in great health to a bed-ridden old man carried around on a litter.

But, though his formidable strenght was at last failing him, he still sought retribution. With all but two of his old trusted lieutenants dead - only the dying Roger Bigod and the fifty-six-year-old Henry de Lacy remained - he was forced to turn to younger men, and turned to his cousin Aymer de Valance and his son, Edward of Caernarfon, to lead the new campaign.

Aymer was originally prepared to be merciful to the Scottish nobles, but Longshanks would have none of it. Still caught up in his anger he demanded that any nobleman who took up arms against him be slain. Whatever mercy the old King had ever possessed was fully expended by this time and was quite sick of Scotsmen. Even men of the cloth were not to be spared, they would not be slain for the were Holy-men, but they would be sent to England and imprisoned. By the time he came to his senses months had passed and Longshanks had destroyed whatever goodwill the people of Scotland had for him or England.

As the Bruce was chased out to sea and his supporter rounded up, killed, imprisoned or on the run, Longshanks himself came north but had to stop several times because he was too ill to move on.

Then came the row between him and his son over Piers Gaveston which has, in some places, been retold in dramatic terms and Longshanks has been depicted tearing his sons' hair out before having him thrown out of his chamber.

Edward II left the north and was to be found in Dover, showing no interest in events in Scotland while his father ruthlessly culled any Scots appearing to have any Bruce-ist sympathy. With English defeats in Scotland, Longshanks worked himself up into a fury once more and demanded more troops, but the extra pressure continued to effect his health, leaving him bed-ridden for weeks on end.

Rumors stated to circulate that he was actually dead because no-one had seen him in public for months. Hearing these rumors Longshanks forced himself to make a public appearance at the head of an army marching to war against the returning Bruce in Scotland, but, as we know, he never made it that far and died at Burgh-by-Sands.

From the moment he learnt of the Comyn's murder King Edward set out to destroy the Bruce and all who supported him, and ruthlessly prosecuted any pro-Bruce elements found in Scotland, but he was an old man who was seriously ill and would be dead about half-a-year after the Comyn's murder. He could do little to support the Comyn's against the Bruce's from his tomb in Westminster Abbey. Had he lived longer he most likely would have supported them closely in their Civil War against the Bruce, but he did not have the time to do so before his died and when he was alive he was too blinded by his anger to think about it.
 
Since you did - do you think that if Edward II had been up to daddy's level that he could have supported the Comyns enough to make a difference?

It seems from what you said that even if England wasn't exhausted in the sense of "men? Money? Where?" - the willingness of the nobility to give them to this campaign was wearing thin, even for a king with Edward's formidable reputation (which, even if Jr. isn't a failure, he's going to have to earn the hard way, same as dad did).
 
I for one think had he not died before the campaign started that Scotland could have well been an English vassal state. It's doubtful the Bruce could have survived another such campaign.

Even had he not died, he was in no condition to lead a campaign. That he roused himself so far as he did apparently surprised observers.
 
Mind you, the Bruce was one determined bastard.


He was, and an unconventional (compared to his contemporaries) one as well. He knew his terrain and he knew what his people were good at. So I think as long as he declined a decisive battle with Edward's army (assuming Edward lives longer than OTL), then the two sides just go back and forth like they'd been doing until one leader or the other grew old and died.

Odds are, that'd be Edward. Bruce was apparently a man of great strength and endurance. Oh, I know, accounts of the day may be a bit lurid, but they do remark on that.
 
So I've been doing some reading on the subject recently (after finding out that apparently my family is related to Robert the Bruce) and I've found Edward I to be a fascinating character. More specifically he was an excellent military leader and a very sound tactician and he really seemed to be a capable governor and a wily politician as well, so I'm wondering why unlike in Wales, he failed to capitalize on his gains.

I understand that John Baliol wasn't the best stooge king, but I'm really not seeing how he didn't manage to do so well in fighting the Scots in comparison to the Welsh.

He completely defeated the Scots by 1305.

Then he died.

Bruce didn't really come into the equation until his rebellion in 1306 - before that he was an English vassal for most of the war. Bruce's "kingly qualities" (i.e. not treachery, murder and opportunism) did not come through until he had disposed of the Scottish opposition.
 
Since you did - do you think that if Edward II had been up to daddy's level that he could have supported the Comyns enough to make a difference?

It seems from what you said that even if England wasn't exhausted in the sense of "men? Money? Where?" - the willingness of the nobility to give them to this campaign was wearing thin, even for a king with Edward's formidable reputation (which, even if Jr. isn't a failure, he's going to have to earn the hard way, same as dad did).

Edward Longshanks was a living legend in the 1300's. The last crusader hero, the conquerer of Wales and Hammer of Scots. As the old English nobles died out and and younger men took their place Edward was able to get his way easier with them because the new nobles hero-worshiped him, and were prepared to give in to his desires to prove themselves worthy of a place at his side.

Edward II, even if he had been half the King and Warrior his father was, would have had greater difficulties with the English nobles because they were peers, men of the same age group, and he had not done anything in his life similar to those things that made father the legend he was. Essentially, the noble would see no reason to prove themselves to Edward II and would be more willing to oppose him over taxes and wars and so on - as, indeed, many of Longshank's old nobles had done to him in his early reign.

If Edward II had been more like his father then he would certainly have offered a greater level of support to the Comyn's. Perhaps the most notable moment when he could offer a siginificant level of support was immediately after his father's death, when he led the Army that Longshanks' brought to Burgh-by-Sands into Scotland only to turn straight back round again and the brought Piers Gaveston back to England and spent the rest of 1307 doing very little and alienating his nobles. Had he been more like Longshanks he would have stayed in Scotland and campaigned against the Bruce until he ran out of money and support or was victorious or defeated, and he would have left the entombing of his father's body in the hands of others while he got on with business in the north, and he would never have endulged "favorites" in court like Gaveston.
 
Given that even with him (Edward II) being lax, Bruce was hard pressed, I wonder if this would be enough to tip things in Edward's favor.

The Scots were fiercely determined to be free of English rule - but also sick of fighting and running out of leaders if you knock Bruce and his chief supporters out of the equation. They might bend the knee just to end it.

Not something I'd expect to last forever, but it might count as a win for a given definition of.

Junior's lack of respect from the nobility does seem problematic though. Even if he's determined to do his best, his father has left some very big shoes to fill.
 
Top