Best Military Commander of the Scottish Wars of Independence.

[Nytram01]

The Scottish Wars of Independence (1st War 1296-1328, 2nd War 1332-1357) were a crucial moment in the history of Britain for they reaffirmed the independence of the Scots from the English at a time when, prior to the outbreak of conflict, Scottish and English nobles were becoming increasingly difficult to tell apart and it was not unimaginable that the two nations could have united peacefully within a few generations. Further, it came to define the antagonistic relationship between England and Scotland for many years to come and, in some ways, it still does define that relationship today, a fact Mel Gibson took advantage of in his film Braveheart - which we will here after ignore for the purpose of the subject matter due to it being complete garbage from a viewpoint of historical accuracy.

The purpose of this poll is to pit the generals of these conflicts against each other in debate to determine just who is the Best Military Commander of the Scottish Wars of Independence.

King Edward I (Longshanks) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_I_of_England

King Edward III - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_III_of_England

Amyer de Valence - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aymer_de_Valence,_2nd_Earl_of_Pembroke

John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_de_Warenne,_6th_Earl_of_Surrey

Henry Beaumont - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Beaumont,_'4th_Earl_of_Buchan'

Andrew de Moray - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_de_Moray

William Wallace - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wallace

Robert the Bruce - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_I_of_Scotland

James "the Black" Douglas - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Douglas,_Lord_of_Douglas

John "the Red" Comyn - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_III_Comyn

Sir Andrew Murray - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Andrew_Murray

Other - anyone else you might think more worthy but please explain your choice.

 

[Anaxagoras]

I wish Edward II was on the list so that I could vote for him as a joke.

 

[Nytram01]

I wish Edward II was on the list so that I could vote for him as a joke.

But that would defeat the purpose of this poll asking for the "best" wouldn't it?

 

[Elfwine]

I'm inclined to vote for Edward I (Edward III's participation not giving us much to work with). Murray would be a close second.

Wallace was a pretty good guerillia and not necessarily a bad general, but Falkirk is hard to defend whatever the reason for the cavalry deciding to run away was.

 

[Thoresby]

Edward I was probably the best battlefield General, though I think Robert the Bruce was a better leader and "grand strategist" considering his very successful guerilla.

 

[Elfwine]

Edward I was probably the best battlefield General, though I think Robert the Bruce was a better leader and "grand strategist" considering his very successful guerilla.

But that was against some pretty incompetent opposition in the form of Edward II's less than enthusiastic approach to the war.

 

[Mike Stearns]

My vote was for Edward Longshanks. He was called the Hammer of the Scots for a reason.

 

[Olligarchy]

I have to go with the long shanks as well.

 

[Nytram01]

But that was against some pretty incompetent opposition in the form of Edward II's less than enthusiastic approach to the war.

Not entirely true as the Bruce did defeat Aymer de Valence before Longshank's died - one the last of Edward I's able subordinates - at Loudoun Hill. Though, having said that, the Bruce was also defeated by de Valence a year before at Methven, and in both the case of Methven and Loudoun Hill the defeated army was destroyed and routed, so one must wonder whether he improved in that year, whether de Valence became worse or whether they were evenly matched and likely to trade victories back and forth no matter what.

 

[Elfwine]

Not entirely true as the Bruce did defeat Aymer de Valence before Longshank's died - one the last of Edward I's able subordinates - at Loudoun Hill. Though, having said that, the Bruce was also defeated by de Valence a year before at Methven, and in both the case of Methven and Loudoun Hill the defeated army was destroyed and routed, so one must wonder whether he improved in that year, whether de Valence became worse or whether they were evenly matched and likely to trade victories back and forth no matter what.

Thus me not disputing him being on the list.

My inclination is that Bruce had the good fortune that Edward II and his men were not up to Longshanks and his lieutenants's standard - Scotland was exhausted by Edward I's death, even if it was still determined. Having to face another almost two decades of able, driven (if not able to focus exclusively on Scotland) English leadership might have been too much.

But as for individual merits, I'm not sure who wins. The big picture of the war isn't the same as who would win in a direct match up.