WI: Falkirk Goes As Planned?

I just got done watching Braveheart for the umpteenth time, and it got me wondering...

The Battle of Falkirk in the First War of Scottish Independence could've been a crushing defeat for the English, but none of the Scottish Magnates or Robert the Bruce showed support at the battle. What if they did, how many more soldiers would Wallace have on his side, and could he have defeated Longshanks?

Maybe after Wallace defeats the English King, Scotland gains support from the French? Earlier Auld Alliance leading to a stronger independent Scotland?
 
IIRC the Battle of Falkirk as it actually happened in OTL (a far cry from how it is portrayed in the film Braveheart) was in and of itself a failure in that Wallace's plan was to avoid a drawn out battle and adopt a scorched earth policy and force Edward I's mammoth army to retreat due to poor logistics.

So lets say that Longshanks does not get word of Wallace's position. He is forced to retreat rather ignominiously back to England with his multi-ethnic army falling apart at the seams due to poor rations and Scottish hit and run attacks. This coupled with increasing international support for Scotland might be enough to result in an earlier independence for Scotland.
 
IIRC the Battle of Falkirk as it actually happened in OTL (a far cry from how it is portrayed in the film Braveheart) was in and of itself a failure in that Wallace's plan was to avoid a drawn out battle and adopt a scorched earth policy and force Edward I's mammoth army to retreat due to poor logistics.

So lets say that Longshanks does not get word of Wallace's position. He is forced to retreat rather ignominiously back to England with his multi-ethnic army falling apart at the seams due to poor rations and Scottish hit and run attacks. This coupled with increasing international support for Scotland might be enough to result in an earlier independence for Scotland.

Nice. Whats the Irish situation as this point, are they in any position to be of valuable aid?
 
Nice. Whats the Irish situation as this point, are they in any position to be of valuable aid?
Considering Robert Bruce tried to conquer them and nominally succeeded for only a few years (the non-Ulster Irish hated them as much as the English) ... probably not.
 
IIRC the Battle of Falkirk as it actually happened in OTL (a far cry from how it is portrayed in the film Braveheart) was in and of itself a failure in that Wallace's plan was to avoid a drawn out battle and adopt a scorched earth policy and force Edward I's mammoth army to retreat due to poor logistics.

So lets say that Longshanks does not get word of Wallace's position. He is forced to retreat rather ignominiously back to England with his multi-ethnic army falling apart at the seams due to poor rations and Scottish hit and run attacks. This coupled with increasing international support for Scotland might be enough to result in an earlier independence for Scotland.

Well that's partially what happened in my TL... (shameless advertising).

And it worth remembering that at Falkirk most of the major families were present... this was not a Stirling Bridge occassion when it was largely peasents, this is Scotland's finest fighting Edward.

Unfortunately Edward's army at the time was one of the best (if not the best) at the time and so the Scots were outclassed... with our archer slaughtered by the English cavalry... after they had destroyed the small Scots cavalry (it isworth remembering the nobles did try to fight they were just overwhelmed by the numbers of English cavalry). After that the English archer just rained arrows apon the dug in schiltrons and so the Scots were slaughtered with even Wallace fleeing to near by Calander Woods.

So the Scots really could not face Edward I at open battle...

Internationally, Scotland was definetly trying to make allies (we know this from the invite to Hanseatic League merchants to come do business in Scotland) though unfortunately Scotland was defeated before these communications could become more substantial...

So there are a lot of interesting possibilities...
 
The problem with making the Battle of Falkirk specifically go exactly as Wallace planned it to go is the simple fact that Wallace misjudged Edward I.

Wallace built his plans for the battle on what the English had done previously against the Scots - charge with the mounted Knights to break up the enemy formations then send in the infantry - but this was folly because Longshanks could not but judged by had happened before.

Longshanks was a very progressive military mind. He was never just happy to use something that had worked before, he was always looking for new ways to improve his war machine, for new tactics that would make his armies more effective.

Wallace's plan had been to let the English Knights charge and to defeat them with the Schiltrons, then as the English infantry engaged the Scottish knights would charge into the fray and break the English infantry. At the battle itself the English knights did charge at the start of the battle before Longshanks took the field, once Longshanks took the field he recalled his knights to order then brought up his archers and the battle was won - bit more to it than that in truth but that's the basics of it.

The only real chance Wallace had was to avoid a pitched battle with Longshanks since not only did Longshanks' progressive mlitary mind make him unpredictable as an opponant but also the English Army far outclassed the Scots as a fighting machine.
 
Maybe after Wallace defeats the English King, Scotland gains support from the French? Earlier Auld Alliance leading to a stronger independent Scotland?
Nope. In no way shape or form was this going to happen. I can just hear you asking why? What the Hell do you know?

Briefly, Wallace, although he gets all the glory from Stirling Bridge, was not a capable battlefield commander. He was a guerilla leader (a bandit if you like). His activities were confined to the south-west of Scotland (Ayrshire, Lanark, Dumfries and Galloway). The man who actually won Stirling Bridge (Sir Andrew de Moray) was a noble and an experienced military leader - he was also dead as a result of the battle.

Wallace had no experience in commanding large numbers of men and no understanding of tactics as he showed at Falkirk. While the English Knights couldn't break the schiltroms, the schiltroms were immobile due to the incompetence of a certain William Wallace. This made them a sitting target for the Welsh longbowmen.

Somebody said "this was not a Stirling Bridge occassion when it was largely peasents, this is Scotland's finest fighting Edward." This is nonsense. The schiltroms were manned by the "lower orders" and as far as "Scotland's finest", the only thing they were "fine" at was looking out for their own interests.
 
In fairness, had the English done as Wallace expected - and yes we can go on about how expecting that of Edward was a bad idea - the schiltrons were exactly what was needed. And there's more reason to be worried about English knights than English archers, looking at what one would know of feudal armies.

I don't think Wallace was a brilliant battlefield commander, but let's not treat him as a complete dummy, either.

Can't see a way for Falkirk not to be a defeat unless Longshanks is one, however. The nobles doing more than looking out for their own interests might help a little, but the kind of army Scotland has there (a lot like that a certain Bruce would have at Bannockburn - wonder why if its such a bad idea) versus the kind of army Edward has...

It won't end well for the Scots. Maybe if the Welsh desert and (ideally) join Wallace, but that's going beyond "planned".
 
^It's not like the Scottish pikemen were that good. They could Schiltrom but whenever they had to do anything else under anyone, it didn't go well. Mini-Swiss or even Flemmish, they were not.
 
^It's not like the Scottish pikemen were that good. They could Schiltrom but whenever they had to do anything else under anyone, it didn't go well. Mini-Swiss or even Flemmish, they were not.

Which is kind of alarming given how they seem to have thought they were in later wars.
 
Which is kind of alarming given how they seem to have thought they were in later wars.
Formation fighting takes good leadership but GREAT training, something they had neither at Falkirk or Flodden field. If they had, I think they would have won. But I don't see Wallace being able to do that at any time.

To win, they needed a new commander.
 
Formation fighting takes good leadership but GREAT training, something they had neither at Falkirk or Flodden field. If they had, I think they would have won. But I don't see Wallace being able to do that at any time.

To win, they needed a new commander.

Yeah, but since the reason things worked at Bannockburn is that Edward II was exactly the kind of idiot Wallace was hoping Edward I was at Falkirk, I'm not sure its the commander's fault.

King Bob didn't have particularly magnificent tactics, so...

I'm not arguing with the majority of your post, just thinking replacing Wallace won't do the trick (a surviving Moray is more likely to mean no Falkirk than a successful one).
 
Yeah, but since the reason things worked at Bannockburn is that Edward II was exactly the kind of idiot Wallace was hoping Edward I was at Falkirk, I'm not sure its the commander's fault.

King Bob didn't have particularly magnificent tactics, so...

I'm not arguing with the majority of your post, just thinking replacing Wallace won't do the trick (a surviving Moray is more likely to mean no Falkirk than a successful one).

True enough, maybe a few months of intense training could have closed the gap. Mobile schiltrons are a lot more dangerous than static ones. The problem is that I don't see a man like Wallace, a guerrilla leader, putting together a more professional, well trained army. The Bruce may not have been a military genius, but he did have a well trained army.

And an unpopular imbecile for an opponent who died in a slightly humorous way.
 
But the circumstances where they were mobile was a response to a tactical screw up by Junior. I'm not convinced the forces under Bob were any better than Wallace's.

But yeah, Edward II's death is amusing in a macabre sort of way.
 
Top