The relations with Scotland

Model answer

A is Berwick and B is Scone.

Model answer

The alliance with France was important first because it caused the war of 1296. It was made in Paris in October 1295 by the council of twelve who now governed Scotland, and ratified in February 1296. Each kingdom promised to help the other against England, and Balliol's son was to marry a niece of King Philip IV. Edward had been at war with France since 1294 over Gascony, so to him this was treason by a vassal who had sworn homage. He invaded in March 1296, stormed Berwick and defeated the Scots at Dunbar, and by July Balliol had been deposed. The alliance therefore turned a quarrel over overlordship into open war.

Secondly, it shaped the long war that followed. Edward now faced enemies on two fronts. In 1297 he was campaigning in Flanders against France when the Scots won at Stirling Bridge. The Scots looked to France for help: Wallace went to France in 1299 to seek support, French pressure helped secure Balliol's release into papal custody in 1299, and France helped arrange truces such as that of 1302. This encouraged the Scots to keep fighting in the hope that Balliol might be restored.

However, the alliance was also important because of its limits. After the French were defeated by the Flemings at Courtrai in 1302, Philip IV made the Peace of Paris with Edward in May 1303, leaving the Scots out. Without French help, the Scots were isolated, and in February 1304 John Comyn and most of the Scottish leaders submitted to Edward. So the alliance both started the war and, when France abandoned it, helped to bring about the Scottish surrender of 1304 - although it began the 'Auld Alliance' that lasted for centuries.

Model answer

Interpretation A is convincing that Edward was at the height of his power in Scotland in 1305. In February 1304 John Comyn and most of the Scottish nobles submitted at Strathord, on fairly lenient terms that restored their lands in return for fines or short periods of exile. In July 1304 Stirling Castle, the last major stronghold, surrendered after a siege in which Edward used the giant Warwolf trebuchet. Wallace was captured in August 1305 and executed at Smithfield. In September 1305 the Ordinance for the Government of Scotland, drawn up with ten Scottish representatives at Westminster, created a council that included Scots such as Robert Bruce and Bishops Wishart and Lamberton, and some Scots were appointed sheriffs.

However, A is much less convincing when it claims the conquest was complete and the settlement wise. Scotland was now called a 'land', not a kingdom; its king had been deposed and the Stone of Destiny was in Westminster Abbey. The top officials, including the lieutenant, Edward's nephew John of Brittany, were Edward's men, and the peace depended on English garrisons. The nobles had submitted only because France had abandoned them in 1303. Resentment remained: Wallace's harsh execution created bitterness, and Bruce and Bishop Lamberton had already made a secret bond of mutual support in 1304. When Bruce killed Comyn in February 1306 and was crowned in March, bishops and many Scots supported him, which shows the settlement had not been accepted. It was not just one 'rash' act that destroyed it.

Overall, A is convincing about Edward's achievements in 1304-05, but as an English school history of 1925 it admires Edward, calls Wallace an 'outlaw' and blames Bruce alone. Edward's position looked strong in 1305 but rested on force and forced submissions, which is why it collapsed so quickly.

Model answer

William Wallace was the most famous leader of Scottish resistance, and in 1297-98 he was the most important. However, across the whole period from 1297 to 1307 I think Robert Bruce was more important, because his rising of 1306 began the struggle that finally won independence, while John Comyn kept resistance alive in the years between.

Wallace's importance is clear. In May 1297, when most nobles had submitted to Edward, he began his rising by killing William Heselrig, the English sheriff of Lanark. With Andrew Moray he won the great victory at Stirling Bridge in September 1297, which destroyed English rule. As Guardian of Scotland in the name of King John he raided northern England and organised the kingdom. He never submitted to Edward, was excluded from the terms of 1304 and, after his capture and execution in 1305, became a lasting symbol of resistance. However, he was defeated at Falkirk in 1298 and resigned as Guardian, and after that his role was smaller - in 1299 he went to France to seek help.

Other leaders were also vital. Andrew Moray led the rising in the north in 1297 and shared command at Stirling Bridge - his name comes first on the letter to the merchants of Lubeck - but he died of his wounds in 1297. John Comyn of Badenoch, head of the most powerful noble family, was Guardian from 1298 and kept up resistance for six years after Falkirk; he defeated an English force at Roslin in 1303 and only submitted in 1304 after France abandoned the Scots. Churchmen such as Bishop Wishart of Glasgow and Bishop Lamberton of St Andrews encouraged resistance, won the support of the Pope, who claimed Scotland for the papacy in 1299, and later backed Bruce.

Robert Bruce's role was mixed. He was a Guardian from 1298 to 1300 but submitted to Edward in 1302. In February 1306, however, he killed Comyn and was crowned King of Scots. Although he was defeated at Methven in 1306 and lost his brothers and much of his family, he fought on, winning at Glen Trool and Loudoun Hill in 1307. When Edward died in July 1307, Bruce was still fighting, and he went on to win independence at Bannockburn in 1314.

Overall, Wallace was the most important leader in 1297-98 and the greatest inspiration of the war. But measured over the whole period, Bruce was more important: he gave the Scots a king to fight for, and his persistence in 1306-07 laid the foundation for victory. Wallace's importance lies more in what he symbolised than in what he achieved after 1298.