Inside the Wallace Monument

Rampant Scotland lists June 25, 1887 as the date on which the Wallace Monument was unveiled in Stirling.  John Rochead served as architect for the monument, and David Stevenson sculpted the statue of Wallace.  Stevenson at one point worked with Sir John Steell who sculpted the statue of Sir Walter Scott in Edinburgh's  Walter Scott Monument.  One of Stevenson's works is in the Scott Monument as well; the statue of James VI. The Wallace Monument houses a bust of Sir Walter Scott, and several others, along with the statue of Wallace.  The Scott work was also sculpted by Stevenson, and was placed in the hall in 1884.

Battle of Stirling Bridge

On September 11, 1297, Scots forces numbering approximately 2,000 under William Wallace and Andrew Moray defeated an English force 5-6 times their size.  The English were commanded by John de Warenne and Hugh de Cressingham.  Cressingham led his cavalry across the bridge that morning, and into the waiting arms of the Scottish soldiers. Scots troops then took control of the bridge, and routed the mounted knights.  Cressingham and Moray did not survive that day.  Wallace and Warenne did, and met again at the Battle of Falkirk.

Walter Scott renders his version of this event in his "Tales of a Grandfather":

'...Thus Wallace's party grew daily stronger and stronger, and many of the Scottish nobles joined with him. Among these was Sir William Douglas, the Lord of Douglasdale, and the head of a great family often mentioned in Scottish history. There was also Sir John the Grahame, who became Wallace's bosom friend and greatest confident. Many of these great noblemen, however, deserted the cause of the country on the approach of John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey, the English governor, at the head of a numerous and well-appointed army. They thought that Wallace would be unable to withstand the attack of so many disciplined soldiers, and hastened to submit themselves to the English, for fear of losing their estates. Wallace, however, remained undismayed, and at the head of a considerable army. He had taken up his camp upon the northern side of the river Forth, near the town of Stirling. The river was there crossed by a long wooden bridge, about a mile above the spot where the present bridge is situated.


The English general approached the banks of the river on the southern side. He sent two clergymen to offer a pardon to Wallace and his followers, on condition that they should lay down their arms. But such was not the purpose of the high-minded champion of Scotland.


"Go back to Warenne," said Wallace, " and tell him we value not the pardon of the King of England. We are not here for the purpose of treating of peace, but of abiding battle, and restoring freedom to our country. Let the English come on;—we defy them to their very beards!"


The English, upon hearing this haughty answer, called loudly to be led to the attack. The Earl of Surrey hesitated, for he was a skilful soldier, and he saw that, to approach the Scottish army, his troops must pass over the long, narrow wooden bridge; so that those who should gel over first might be attacked by Wallace with all his forces, before those who remained behind could possibly come to their assistance. He therefore inclined to delay the battle. But Cressingham the Treasurer, who was ignorant and presumptuous, insisted that it was their duty to fight, and put an end to the war at once; and Surrey gave way to his opinion, although Cressingham, being a churchman, could not be so good a judge of what was fitting as he himself, an experienced officer.


The English army began to cross the bridge, Cressingham leading the van, or foremost division of the army; for, in those military days, even clergymen wore armour and fought in battle. That took place which Surrey had foreseen. Wallace suffered a considerable part of the English army to pass the bridge, without offering any opposition; but when about one-half were over, and the bridge was crowded with those who were following, he charged those who had crossed' with his whole strength, slew a very great number, and drove the rest into the river Forth,where the greater part were drowned. The remainder of the English army, who were left on the southern bank of the river, fled in great confusion, having first set fire to the wooden bridge, that the Scots might not pursue them. Cressingham was killed in the very beginning of the battle; and the Scots detested him so much, that they flayed the skin from his dead body, and kept pieces of it, in memory of the revenge they had taken upon the English Treasurer. Some say they made saddle-girths of this same skin; a purpose for which I do not think it could be very fit. It must be owned to have been a dishonourable thing of the Scots to insult thus the dead body of their enemy, and shows that they must have been then a ferocious and barbarous people.

The remains of Surrey's great army fled out of Scotland after this defeat; and the Scots, taking arms on all sides, attacked the castles in which the English soldiers continued to shelter themselves, and took most of them by force or stratagem. Many wonderful stories are told of Wallace's exploits on these occasions; some of which are no doubt true, while others are either invented, or very much exaggerated. It seems certain, however, that he defeated the English in several combats, chased fliem almost entirely out of Scotland, regained the towns and castles of which they had possessed themselves, and recovered for a time the complete freedom of the country. He even marched into England, and laid Cumberland and Northumberland waste, where the Scottish soldiers, in revenge for the mischief which the English had done in their country, committed great cruelties. Wallace did not approve of their killing the people who were not in arms, and he endeavoured to protect the clergymen and others, who were not able to defend themselves. " Remain with me," he said to the priests of Hexham, a large town in Northumberland, " for I cannot protect you from my soldiers when you are out of my presence."—The troops who followed Wallace received no pay, because he had no money to give them ; and that was one great reason why he could not keep them under restraint, or prevent their doing much harm to the defenceless country people. He remained in England more than three weeks, and did a great deal of mischief to the country...'

William Wallace's Execution

Walter Scott wrote about William Wallace's life in "Exploits and death of William Wallace, the Hero of Scotland".  On this, the 705th anniversary of Wallace's execution (August 23, 1305), this text from Scott's work:

'...But what Edward prized more than the surrender of the last fortress which resisted his arms in Scotland was the captivity of her last patriot. He had found in a Scottish nobleman, Sir John Monteith, a person willing to become his agent in searching for Wallace among the wilds where he was driven to find refuge. Wallace was finally betrayed to the English by his unworthy and apostate countryman, who obtained an opportunity of seizing him at Robroyston, near Glasgow, by the treachery of a servant.


Sir William Wallace was instantly transferred to London, where he was brought to trial in Westminster Hall, with as much apparatus of infamy as the ingenuity of his enemies could devise. He was crowned with a garland of oak, to intimate that he had been king of outlaws. The arraignment charged him with high treason, in respect that he had stormed and taken towns and castles, and shed much blood. "Traitor," said Wallace, "was I never." The rest of the charges he confessed and proceeded to justify them. He was condemned, and executed by decapitation, 1305. His head was placed on a pinnacle on London bridge, and his quarters were distributed over the kingdom.

Thus died this courageous patriot, leaving a remembrance which will be immortal in the hearts of his countrymen. This steady champion of independence having been removed, and a bloody example held out to all who should venture to tread in his footsteps, Edward proceeded to form a species of constitution for the country, which, at the cost of so much labor, policy, and bloodshed, he had at length, as he conceived, united forever with the English crown. ...'

Wallace Betrayed

'There is something singularly doubtful about the mode in which Wallace was taken. That he was betrayed to the English is indubitable ; and popular fame charges Sir John Menteith with the indelible infamy. " Accursed," says Arnold Blair, " be the day of nativity of John de Menteith, and may " his name be struck out of the book of life." But John de Menteith was all along a zealous favourer of the English interest, and was governor of Dumbarton Castle by commission from Edward the First; and therefore, as the accurate Lord Hailes has observed, could not be the friend and confidant of Wallace, as tradition states him to be. The truth seems to be, that Menteith thoroughly engaged in the English interest, pursued Wallace closely, and made him prisoner through the treachery of an attendant, whom Peter Langtoft calls Jack Short.


" WilliamWaleis is noinen that master was of theves,
Tiding to the King is comen that robbery mischeivs,
Sir John of Menetest sued William so nigh,
He tok him when he ween'd least, on night, his leman him by,
That was through treason of Jack Short his man,
He was the encheson that Sir John so him ran,
Jack's brother had he slain, the Walleis that is said,
The more Jack was fain to do William that braid."


From this it would appear that the infamy of seizing Wallace, must rest between a degenerate Scottish nobleman, the vassal of England, and a domestic, the obscure agent of his treachery ; between Sir John Menteith, son of Walter, Earl of Menteith, and the traitor Jack Short.'
 
History has ascribed guilt to John de Menteith for betraying William Wallace to the English.  This deed occurred on August 3, 1305.  Menteith was Scottish, but loyal to King Edward I, who'd appointed him Governor of Dunbarton Castle.  Walter Scott includes one Jack Short as a facilitator, based on the chronicle of Peter Langtoft, who was a canon of the Augustinian Priory in Bridlington.  The text above is included in the notes to Canto Second of "The Lord of the Isles", published in "The Poetical Works of Sir Walter Scott".

Battle of Falkirk

The Battle of Falkirk occurred on July 22, 1298.  William Wallace was serving as Guardian of Scotland at the time.  English forces under Edward I invaded Scotland, searching for Wallace.  The found him at Falkirk, and handed the Scots a terrible defeat.  Wallace escaped, but his friend and ally Sir John de Graham died during the battle.

Walter Scott wrote of the outcome of this battle in his "The History of Scotland". 'The slaughter and disgrace of the battle of Falkirk might have been repaired in other respects; but it cost the Scottish kingdom an irredeemable loss in the public services of Wallace. He resigned the guardianship of the kingdom, unable to discharge its duties, amidst the calumnies with which faction and envy aggravated his defeat. The bishop of Saint Andrew's, Bruce earl of Carrick, and sir John Comyn were chosen guardians of Scotland, which they administered in the name of Baliol. In the mean time that unfortunate prince was, in compassion or scorn, delivered up to the pope by Edward, and a receipt was gravely taken for his person from the nuncio then in France. This led to the entrance of a new competitor for the Scottish kingdom...'

Wallace Research

July 18 (1827).—Entered this morning on the history of Sir William Wallace. I wish I may be able to find my way between what the child can comprehend and what shall not yet be absolutely uninteresting to the grown readers. Uncommon facts I should think the best receipt....

The research begun by Scott this day in 1827 undoubtedly contributed to output in the form of his "The History of Scotland, which was published in 1830.  Below is a section about Wallace from that work.

'If the Scoto-Norman nobles had lightly transferred their allegiance to Edward, it was otherwise with the middle and lower proprietors, who, sprung of the native race of Scotland, mingling in the condition of the people, and participating in their feeling, burnt with zeal to avenge themselves on the English, who were in usurped possession of their national fortresses. As soon as Edward with his army had crossed the frontiers, they broke out into a number of petty insurrections, unconnected indeed, but sufficiently numerous to indicate a disposition for hostilities, which wanted but a leader to render it general. They found one in sir William Wallace.


This champion of his country was of Anglo-Norman descent, but not so distinguished by birth and fortune as to enjoy high rank, great wealth, or participate in that chilling indifference to the public honour and interest which these advantages were apt to create in their possessor. He was born in Renfrewshire, a district of the ancient kingdom of Strath-Clyde, and his nurse may have soothed him with tales and songs of the Welsh bards, as there is room to suppose that the British language was still lingering in remote corners of the country, where it had been once universal. At any rate, Wallace was bred up free from the egotistic and selfish principles which are but too natural to the air of a court, and peculiarly unfavourable to the character of a patriot. Popular Scottish tradition, which delights to dwell upon the beloved champion of the people, describes William Wallace as of dignified stature, unequalled strength and dexterity, and so brave, that only on one occasion, and then under the influence of a supernatural power, is he allowed by tradition to have experienced the sensation of fear...'

Battle of Roslin

The Battle of Roslin (February 24, 1303) was one of the earliest skirmishes in the First War of Scottish Independence.  The battle involved, according to some sources (incl. the Clan Sinclair website), approximately 8,000 Scots, and up to 30,000 highly trained English troops.  The trigger for this altercation seems to be jealousy, on the part of Sir John Segrave, who served as Edward I of England's commander in Scotland.  The object of Segrave's desire was Lady Margaret Ramsay of Dalhousie, who had fallen in love with Sir Henry Sinclair of Rosslyn.

Segrave, based in Carlyle England, learned of Margaret's intention to marry Henry, and quickly obtained permission from Edward to invade Scotland.  A Cistercian prior known as Abernethy is said to have learned of Segrave's movements, and dispatched monks to warn various Scottish nobles.  Several significant Scottish leaders answered the call, including John Comyn, William Wallace, Henry Sinclair, and Simon Fraser, who was elected to lead the Scottish forces.  The battle ended with an absolute rout of the English, and Henry happily married Margaret.

Roslin Castle figures prominently in Walter Scott's "The Lay of the Last Minstrel":

"...With war and wonder all on flame,
To Roslin's bowers young Harold came,
Where, by sweet glen and greenwood tree,
He learn'd a milder minstrelsy;
Yet something of the Northern spell
Mix'd with the softer numbers well..."

William Wallace

No Scots oriented thought would be complete without considering William Wallace, who died, decapitated, on this day in 1305. Scott wrote about Wallace in his Exploits and Death of William Wallace, the 'Hero of Scotland". It is an interesting read, focusing on the power vacuun that England's Edward I exploited after Alexander III's death. John Baliol became king, though in name only. For all intents and purposes, Scotland became a dependency of England. In 1296, after Baliol had made an alliance with Philip of France, Edward invaded Scotland, slaughtering thousands. Baliol surrendered, but the Scottish people never capitulated. Out of this environment, Wallace arose. Scott includes Wallace's story in "Tales of a Grandfather".