Thursday, March 25, 2010

The Battle of Stirling Bridge

This is Stirling Bridge but it is far downstream from the original wooden bridge were the battle was fought.

On the 11th of September 1297, the First War of Scottish Independence took place, where Andrew Moray, William Wallace, and their armies defeated the combined English forces of John de Warenne, 7th Earl of Surrey, and Hugh de Cressingham near Stirling, on the River Forth, at The Battle of Stirling Bridge.

That sounds entirely way to much like a school paper. (Coming from me, that is a criticism.)

At the Battle of Stirling Bridge, William Wallace and his friend, Andrew de Moray, defeated the English against the odds. I have read
many different estimated numbers for how many men were in each army, but in all of them the English always had significantly more than the Scottish.

I think that the story of the Battle of Sterling Bridge is most interesting. You see, the thing about William Wallace and the Battle of Sterling Bridge is that it sounds like something out of a book, like a
fictional book. Anyhow. One very interesting and almost comical thing (there are a few of those in the story) is that a Scottish traitor told the English of a ford not far down stream were a great many of them could cross the water quite easily, but they insisted on taking their very large army across this little bitty narrow wooden bridge. How silly was that?

There is so very much that I could say, so very many interesting things I could write, but I have decided that since I have been working on these posts for a long while and I am quite busy at the present, I will just have a link to the place that has it all:

It was truly a great battle.


Anonymous said...

The view of Stirling Bridge from the William Wallace Monument is breathtaking. The history makes it more so. I loved your post, Julie.

Aunt Mikele

Julie said...

Thank you, Mikele. :) I would love to see it.

The Night Writer said...

The amount of effort you put into the study behind these posts is EXTREMELY admirable. I can tell that as I read your blog I am going to learn a great deal.

This is my first time reading or hearing anything about William Wallace, and I cannot help but wonder why they are making movies called 'Hot Tub Time Machine' instead of movies about this guy. Whether he was a man of character or not, his deeds were obviously truly epic, and your posts have sparked my desire to learn more.

Thank you, once again, for a thoroughly enjoyable blog.

The Night Writer said...

Also, that sword is completely and utterly awesome.

Also, I seriously have to see 'Star Trek: First Contact'.

Julie said...

I am most honored and pleased by your praise, Night Writer! Wallace is awesome and I am very glad that my post made you want to learn more about this great hero.

Sadly, they did make a movie that they had the audacity to say was based on him. I have been fortunate enough to have not seen it but I here it was awful.

We shall have to commission Peter Jackson to make a good movie of the story.

Julie said...

Also, The Sword is totally cool.

Also, you seriously do have to see Star Trek: First Contact. It is the best Next Generation movie, next to Star Trek:Insurrection, that is.

Anonymous said...

So you liked *Insurrection* better than *First Contact*? :) I do, too.

Night Writer, Mel Gibson directed (and starred in) *Braveheart,* which is the movie about Sir William to which Julie referred. As she implied, it is not entirely accurate. :) (I hope you don't mind my jumping into the conversation.)

~ A. K. ~

Julie said...

I don't mind at all, A.K. :)

I read that some guy made a (really ugly) statue of Mel Gibson pretending to be Wallace and the Scots kept vandalizing it they hated it so much.
I'm not saying this is accurate: I read it on Wikipedia, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did. It was really quite ugly.

Anonymous said...

I have to pipe up here. The movie, Braveheart, was actually very good, albeit a bit violent, and, as you said, inaccurate.

Julie said...

Thank you for your input, M, but I refuse to think well of it (The movie, that is :) ). Well, if they wanted to make a movie of some story that they made up, why didn't they just make up their own names to go with it and we would just have another very good movie instead of an inaccurate movie clamming to be about Wallace? Just a thought.