Monday, March 27, 2006

   Just a stupid History Essay

Was it the Scottish Skill that won the Battle of Stirling Bridge? Para 1: Intro: Set the scene and introduce the reasons. Para 2: Roughly explain what happened and why. Para 3: Write what would’ve and what wouldn’t have happened if the battle took place. Para 4: Describe Wallace’s and Moray’s history and explain why it is relevant to the topic. Para 5: Go on to discuss whether or not it was de Warenne and/or Cressinghams incompetence and/or arrogance that made them lose the battle. Para 6: Conclusion: Sum up main points (no detail; Don’t repeat intro-try to make it different/interesting). Answer the question. Intro: On 11 September, 1297, Wallace achieved victory at the Battle of Stirling Bridge. Although vastly outnumbered, the Scottish forces led by Andrew Moray (a more prominent noble, being a first son) and with Wallace as their captain, routed the English army. The Earl of Surrey's professional army of 300 cavalry and 10,000 infantry met disaster as they crossed over to the north side of the river. The narrowness of the bridge prevented many soldiers from crossing together (possibly as few as three men abreast), so while the English soldiers crossed, the Scots held back until half of them had passed and then killed the English as quickly as they could cross. This battle was due to William Wallace’s rebellion… Para 2: I’ll wing it. Para3: The English Governor of Scotland, John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey, commanded a force of mail-clad cavalry, skilled longbow men from Wales and well- weaponed infantry, in all numbering 60,000, with 8000 in reserve. This was to be Wallace's first experience of a standing battle as against guerrilla and harrying actions. The Stirling Bridge today, thought to be very close to where the original stood. t the critical moment he gave the order and the Scots charged down the slopes to reach the bridgehead and trap a manageable number of the enemy who perished in their thousands, caught between the Scottish spears and the river. If the Battle of Stirling Bridge didn’t take place there wouldn’t be a Battle of Bannockburn due to the Scottish confidence being shot down and the Nobles didn’t like Wallace in the first place. Wallace wouldn’t have been knighted ad there would be no Scottish revollution. There would be no Scotland, just England. Para 4: Sir William Wallace (circa. 1270 – 23 August 1305) was a Scottish knight who led his countrymen in resistance to the English occupation of Edward I, during significant periods of the Wars of Scottish Independence. He inspired the composition of "The Acts and Deeds of Sir William Wallace, Knight of Elderslie" by the minstrel Blind Harry, from which many popular conceptions of Wallace are drawn. Tradition often describes Wallace as "one of the common people," in contrast to his countryman, Robert the Bruce, who came from the upper nobility. More likely, Wallace's family were minor gentry, descending from Richard Wallace the Welshman, a landowner under an early member of the House of Stuart, which later became royal house of Scotland. Moray: Andrew Moray, also called Andrew of Moray (La: Andreas de Moravia), Andrew Murray or simply Moray (d. 1297) Guardian of Scotland, (de facto head of state) during the Second Interregnum of 1296-1306, was a key military and political leader in Scotland during the Scottish Wars of Independence. Wallace and Moray met, and perhaps each took courage from the other's conviction. When Wallace prepared for the English invasion at Stirling, Moray brought an army to join the cause, and some attribute the Scottish victory at the Battle of Stirling Bridge (11 September 1297) to de Moray's tactical skill. Unfortunately, the battle at Stirling Bridge cost Moray his life; an arrow wound he suffered in the fight killed him two months later. Moray's son, also called Andrew, went on to fight for Scottish independence with the same fierce determination shown by his father and grandfather. Para5+6 Shall be done later.

Comments (1)