Wallace and Bruce had little in common

The other week was of course the anniversary of Wallace’s great victory at Stirling Bridge and as usual I led a guided walk across the battlefield, just squeezing it in before the“rule of Six” arrived.

Wallace looms large in Stirling and features on three statues, as indeed does Bruce. The two of them stand guard at Stirling Council’s HQ at Viewforth, although in life they were never that close. Wallace was an unwavering patriot, he fought for king and country, but that king was not Bruce it was John Balliol.

By contrast the Bruce family were complex, Machiavellian political operators, they fought against the Scots at Dunbar and Bruce himself helped with the siege of Stirling Castle in 1304. The subsequent peace treaty agreed with the Red Comyn included a specific clause about Wallace and his handful of loyal followers. They would not be part of the peace.

Following his murder of the Red Comyn, Bruce had to unify Scotland at the edge of his sword before he could turn it on the English. Yes, Bruce was probably our greatest military leader, but did his personal ambition prolong the war? Does it matter, did the ends justify the means?

We will never know, but certainly Wallace’s example shamed the Bruces and the great medieval epic poem of and exploits have grown into myths and legends, to have risen to de facto king from such a humble beginning is absolutely incredible.

For me he is without doubt the greatest Scot of all time, he stands

Standing guard Wallace and Bruce statues at Stirling Council’s Viewforth HQ the Wars of Independence: Barbour’s The Brus, composed for Bruce’s son, David II, does not mention Wallace even once. Wallace was an astonishing individual, and while much of his life shoulder to shoulder with the world’s greatest heroes: he is our Mandela, our Washington, our Bonhoeffer and our Churchill all rolled into one. I salute his memory and sacrifice.