Willian Wallace wins at Falkirk

According to Henry the Blind, the "historian" who made Wallace a Scotish legend, Wallace was betrayed by the Scotish aristocracy who left the battle with their cavalry at the crucial point. Consequentially, as the story goes, the English were able to defeat the Scots.

But what if the cavalry remained &, in doing so, ensured Wallace was victorious.

Would Edward I try again?

Would Wallace once again slaughter the nefarious English in future battles?

Could Wallace kill Edward the Longshanks (or Edward II depending how long the war continues), cut his head off, then tour Scotland with the English Monarch's head on a pike to further support for the independence struggle?

How does Scotland, with presumably Wallace in command of her armies, ensure its independence from the English hoards?

And what are the after effects?

Discuss
 
Last edited:
I dont think that Wallace was actually in a position to beat Longshanks at Falkirk.

Wallace's strategy that day was to use his spearmen in the hedgehog formation known as Schiltrons with archers inside them and some men-at-arms at the rear, provided by John 'the Red' Comyn and other members of the aristocrisy.

The English Cavalry did charge the Schiltrons and failed to make any impact on the Scots but they did so before Longshanks was on the battlefield or this incident surely would not have happened. In fact when Longshanks arrived he quickly restored his knights to order and withdrew them from battle.

English and Scottish spearmen fought viciously with the Scots getting the better of it and the Welsh in Longshanks army were refusing to fight because of a greivance between them and the English a little earlier where English knights killed about 80 Welsh when they were breaking up a drunken riot.

Despite the Scottish sucess up to this point the flaw in their tactics was exposed as the English Archers with their deadly Longbows came up. The Schiltrons were isolated and locked in a static defensive position and made easy targets for the English Archers and had no where to hide. Unable to retreat or attack the battle was lost almost the moment the arrows began to fall. The Welsh finally joined in, wanting to be on the winning side and the English cavalry charged to detroy the remnants of the Scottish forces.

It is believed that about 2000 of Wallaces 6000 strong army was killed and about 2000 of Longshanks 28,700 strong army was killed.

The English Cavalry that day numbered 3000, the English infantry numbered 14,800 and the Welsh infantry bumbered 10,900.

The Scottish Cavalry numbered 1000 and the Scottish infantry numbered 6000.

It is unlikely that the Scottish Cavalry would have made much of an impact on the battle if they did charge, if Henry the Bind is to be believed that they didn't charge at the battle. Falkirk signaled the start of the age of the Longbow and the decline of the mounted knight, the Scottish Cavalry, if they charged, would likely meet the same fate the French Cavalry did at the Battle of Crécy and would be totally destroyed before they even reached the English lines.
 
Last edited:
Whilst I agree with Nytram01's analysis of the battle, what is key is that Edward I pulled the knights back then sent in the infantry. At Stirling Bridge, it was the infantry that was pulled back and a combined knight/infantry forward to be chopped up by the Scots.

Conceding that Stirling Bridge was in effect fought on a bottleneck, it was still winnable by the English, but they blew it. Whilst the more open terrain of Falkirk makes it harder for them to lose, the potential is there.

As for actually killing Longshanks, unless he made a mistake, that is very unlikely. The safest option is the one that the Scots pursued on OTL, namely wait for the old man to die.
 
It would take more than having some cavalry. The Scots cavalry would have been outweighed and well outnumbered. They were in a tricky situation at Falkirk. However, a Scots victory should not be entirely impossible.

It would take the death of Edward to end the war, and presuming he survives, he will try to come back again. The question would be whether his obsession with Scotland provokes revolt in England before he can raise another army?
 
It would take the death of Edward to end the war, and presuming he survives, he will try to come back again. The question would be whether his obsession with Scotland provokes revolt in England before he can raise another army?
A revolt is more likely in Wales. There is also the possibility that a defeat of the English would seem to the French to be a good omen to strike at their northern neighbour.

Wallace's victory may not do him too much good in the long run. Assuming the Scots win and the English don't come back in a hurry, the leading nobles are going to elbow the "peasant" upstart aside and retake control of the "army", Guardian or no Guardian. (I know Wallace was a minor noble, but he is still pretty base).

Of course Wallace could renounce all kings, not just the English one and try to set up a Republic ala the Swiss who be coincidence were fighting off another monarch half a continent away.....
 

Stalker

Banned
OK, what if Robert the Bruce had been able to bring his men to the battlefield of Falkirk to aid Wallace along with some other Highland's clans deciding to take Bruce's side in the fight for the Scottish crown. I still see the picture of "...starving and outnumbered, patriots of Scotland" who "crossed the field of Bannockburn".:D Will it somehow equalise the situation?:confused:
 
OK, what if Robert the Bruce had been able to bring his men to the battlefield of Falkirk to aid Wallace along with some other Highland's clans deciding to take Bruce's side in the fight for the Scottish crown. I still see the picture of "...starving and outnumbered, patriots of Scotland" who "crossed the field of Bannockburn".:D Will it somehow equalise the situation?:confused:

Unlikely.

The Scots at Falkirk are counting on the English using their usual tactics of sending in their mounted knights to try and crush their oponants. The Longbowmen that are actually used are unexpected and catch the Scots unprepared and destroyed them.

If the Bruce was there he would employ the same tactics as Wallace did and would use the schitrons and likely just be destoryed as Wallace's army was.

At the point in time of the Battle of Falkirk Robert the Bruce has only just defected to the Scottish cause and England still believes he may be swayed to their cause. He has yet to take up arms against England.

The Bruce can gain from joining either side at this point. He can join the English cause and gain land and money or he can join the Scottish cause and potentionally gain, land, money, power and the crown. Being an ambitious man the Bruce is never really going to join the English unless his chances of being King are totally gone but he still had the option of joining England at the time of the Battle of Falkirk.

If the Scots had somehow won at Falkirk both Wallace's and John 'the Red' Comyn's reputation would increase both in Scotland and on the Continent and woud likely lead to the European powers being more inclined to recognise Scottish independance.
 
The Scots actually had the best of the English between Bannockburn (poosibly earlier) and Halidon Hill - someone can correct me, but essetially until Halidon hill the English expected to be outmanouvered, out thought and outfought.

I'd have thought we may be able to read backwards what happened in that period - essentially the rise of a Scottish monarchy that could even survive the long imprisonment of David II - if the victories had come form earlier, then this would be even more stable.

It would have an effect on the English - I can see no Crecy or Poitiers in this TL, with Edward III having no place to learn his strategic / tactical system was a winning one. It may be enough to make him happy to be the vassal of the French in Aquitaine (no HYW?) - or push him the other way - more determined to be the victorious, perfect king that neither his fatehr nor, in this TL, his grandfather were
 
Just to be Contrary

If Wallace wins he is not strong enough to destroy the English Army And Edward I is just going to keep comming but it would raise WW's prestige and self opinion even higher. Would Bruce be willing to play second fiddle to a jumped up nobody?

If Wallace has greater popular support it might take a civil war to dislodge him from power and the only winner there is England. We might see a Scotish king, Bruce or Baliol or somebody else, doing homage to the English crown. Give it a hundred years and Scotland is as much English as Provance is French.
 
Wallace purging the nobles and setting up a Scottish republic?

That might be interesting. Perhaps he gets advanced word that they're going to be betrayed?
 
A scottish republic with annually elected Guardians of Scotland? Like the old Roman Republic...
Sounds very very intersting...
Could this Republic survived or collapse like the Roman Republic?
 
A scottish republic with annually elected Guardians of Scotland? Like the old Roman Republic...
Sounds very very intersting...
Could this Republic survived or collapse like the Roman Republic?

Likely this Scottish Republic, some where down the line, would fall appart due to increasing arguements between the likes of Robert the Bruce and John 'the Red' Comyn arguing amoungst themselves over political and personal differeances. A Civil War is bound to break out and then the English would likely end up simply...picking up the peices.

The Guardian of Scotland position is not going to be all powerful and between squabbling noblemen and representatives who put their personal interests before the best interest of their country it will take a very talented politician to simply keep the members of this republic from killing each other.

Of course purging the noble will remove their squabbling but it wouldn't happen because neither the Comyn's or the Bruces are in a weak enough position to be disposed of by Wallace. It took a series of lies and eventual betrayal to remove the Red Comyn in the OTL (killed on holy ground as he was) and unless Wallace employs the same kind of policy against the other noble then he will be stuck with them...but he would be unlikely to be sucessful with this policy all the time.

If Wallace iunstalled a republic in Scotland it would be more like the English parliament, with two houses - one for Lords and the other of elected representatives - and much arguing between those houses. All in all it would be an interesting experiment that would be eventually unsucessful and lead to a factionalized Scotland in a submissive position to their more powerful neibhour England.
 
IIRC, Falkirk wasn't even a battle Wallace and the Scots wanted to fight. Up to that point in the campaign they'd been employing a scorched earth campaign that was stretching the logistics of the English to the limit. Unfortunately for the Scots, the English found Wallace and forced him to do battle.

A possible POD is for Wallace and his army to elude Edward's army and force it to retreat back to England using their scorched Earth Campaign. They then harass Edwards army and proceed to inflict heavy casualties. English/Welsh tensions cause many Welsh bowmen to defect to Wallace's camp where he makes use of the Welsh longbow and incorporates it into his Skilltron formation.

A providential Scottish Calvalry raid sees Edward Longshanks ambushed on his retreat back towards York and summarily executed. His son Edward II takes the throne soon after and tries to execute the war with limited success. Wallace continues to raise hell and eventually forces Edward II to make peace somewhat earlier than OTL.

What follows would most likely be a Scottish Civil War between pro and anti Wallace factions. I could see various concessions being granted to the Scottish Parliament if Wallace can fend off the Nobles and perhaps have Robert Bruce agree to be a less than absolute monarch.
 
The problem for Wallace is that he has pretty much no power base in Scotland, other than his abilities as a good general and excellent guerilla fighter. The whole reason he emerged in the first place was because the Scottish nobility was somewhat shell-shocked and leaderless after the abdication of John Balliol, the Battle of Dunbar and the surrender of Irvine, which had the effect of sending many Scots nobles to the Tower of London or to fight with Edward in France. I think the odds are that even if Wallace avoids defeat by Edward through not fighting Falkirk, he's going to be replaced or sent abroad (as he was in real life to gain foreign support), with the old nobility reassuming control. Then what you would see is more or less what happened in our timeline - with the Earl of Carrick (Bruce) and the Lord of Badenoch (Comyn) fighting it out over the Guardianship, although Wallace may act as a binding force for a bit longer as he did for the brief period he was Guardian.

An interesting question is what if Andrew de Moray, Lord of Bothwell and Wallace's co-commander at Stirling Bridge, had actually survived. In contrast to Wallace, de Moray was a member of the higher ranks of the nobility and could have been able to be a more unifying authority, that the nobles may have been more willing to pay heed to than they did to Wallace.
 
An interesting question is what if Andrew de Moray, Lord of Bothwell and Wallace's co-commander at Stirling Bridge, had actually survived. In contrast to Wallace, de Moray was a member of the higher ranks of the nobility and could have been able to be a more unifying authority, that the nobles may have been more willing to pay heed to than they did to Wallace.
But he still does not have royal blood. What is likely to happen is that Wallace merely gets sacked quicker.

Then again if the Scottish nobles remain shell shocked for longer, Wallace would have the opportunity to set up a republic as I suggested in an early post.

There is of course another option, namely a come back. If Bruce and Comyn both take command and get killed then the hero can return in triumph regain his Guardianship.
 
Even if Comyn and Bruce both somehow die in pursuit of Scottish independence (I find that point alone somewhat unlikely), I don't think Wallace could muster the support to even try to 'come back.' From what I remember, he abandoned his Guardianship and fled to France after the defeat at Falkirk.

Of course, even with all three out of the picture, whether or not the English conquer Scotland is dependant upon who is king. Longshanks would definitely do it, but I'm not that confident in the abilities of Edward II, even with Bruce out of the way. Then again, with Bruce out of the way before 1307, it's possible that Longshanks doesn't go north and die en route to Scotland that year. Then, of course, we have a whole new set of possible TLs.
 
But he still does not have royal blood. What is likely to happen is that Wallace merely gets sacked quicker.

Then again if the Scottish nobles remain shell shocked for longer, Wallace would have the opportunity to set up a republic as I suggested in an early post.

There is of course another option, namely a come back. If Bruce and Comyn both take command and get killed then the hero can return in triumph regain his Guardianship.
I think a republic would be highly implausible. Wallace, from what I've read, was loyal to John Balliol - he had no or little interest in setting himself up to replace the monarchy. In any case, the nobility would simply not stand for it - even if you kill off Bruce and Comyn there's plenty more to take their places, like the Earl of Buchan (junior branch of the Comyns), the Steward, the various other Earls and great lords in the Lowlands and on the edge of the Highlands. Anyway, the point about Moray is that he could have provided a Guardian around whom the nobility could rally, as he was one of their own and didn't have royal ambitions, as well as being a proven military leader.
 
Top