What do you think?
Freedom's Sword: Scotland's Wars of Independence
A modern account of Scotland's longest conflict with England, the series of wars that defined the border between the two countries and poisoned Anglo-Scottish relations for 250 years. Includes b&w maps and illustrations, and color photos. Annotation c. by Book News, Inc., Portland, Or.
352 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1998
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
June 8, 2022
In 1296, Scotland was struggling under the control of Edward I, but one man wanted out. His name was Wolliam Willis.
Nobody knew what Willis looked like until 1995, when Hollywood scientists discovered he looked exactly like Mel Gibson, who happened to be playing a sort of Scottish Apache in a film called Braveheart, which was a sort of Scottish reboot of Dancing With Wolves.
Philomena Cunk, Cunk on Britain
Sorry, couldn't resist. But seriously...
What you get is a really well researched, solidly neutral and honest appraisal of the Scottish Wars of Independence and the associated civil war(s). All thoroughly filtered through the realism of politics in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries - so check your quaint notions of Scottish nationalism and "Freeeedoommm! at the covers, along with the "face painting and extreme whittling".
The reality is that, in effect, you've got a king from England who's given the thankless task of sorting out a Gordian knot of a succession, then has to deal with the factions he upsets and a subject ruler who abandons his fuedal obligations to the guy who put him on the throne in the first place, and from there everything rapidly devolves into any number of examples of self-interest and continual tests of leadership strength until eventually everyone gets sick (literally) and decides that they have better things to do.
I'm not much of a medievalist, but I have to say I really enjoyed this. There's a degree of relevance to current UK national politics, so it's nice to have a scholarly work to refute some of the "interesting" takes on history. Although sadly he left the story of Douglas's visits to Tynemouth Priory before and after Neville's Cross out. Still well worth a look.
Nobody knew what Willis looked like until 1995, when Hollywood scientists discovered he looked exactly like Mel Gibson, who happened to be playing a sort of Scottish Apache in a film called Braveheart, which was a sort of Scottish reboot of Dancing With Wolves.
Philomena Cunk, Cunk on Britain
Sorry, couldn't resist. But seriously...
What you get is a really well researched, solidly neutral and honest appraisal of the Scottish Wars of Independence and the associated civil war(s). All thoroughly filtered through the realism of politics in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries - so check your quaint notions of Scottish nationalism and "Freeeedoommm! at the covers, along with the "face painting and extreme whittling".
The reality is that, in effect, you've got a king from England who's given the thankless task of sorting out a Gordian knot of a succession, then has to deal with the factions he upsets and a subject ruler who abandons his fuedal obligations to the guy who put him on the throne in the first place, and from there everything rapidly devolves into any number of examples of self-interest and continual tests of leadership strength until eventually everyone gets sick (literally) and decides that they have better things to do.
I'm not much of a medievalist, but I have to say I really enjoyed this. There's a degree of relevance to current UK national politics, so it's nice to have a scholarly work to refute some of the "interesting" takes on history. Although sadly he left the story of Douglas's visits to Tynemouth Priory before and after Neville's Cross out. Still well worth a look.
December 31, 2025
Most nations have a defining period of history, a foundation that has been mythologised as the start of the national story. For Scotland that defining period and events are provided by the two Wars of Scottish Independence from 1296 through to 1357. This was the start of the people of Scotland perceiving themselves as Scottish (when many of their nobility, like those in England had Norman ancestry), and in rejection of the English king. Peter Traquair’s Freedom’s Sword: Scotland’s Wars of Independence is an overarching history of the period and includes many defining moments for Scotland; William Wallace’s (of Braveheart fame) victory at Stirling Bridge, Robert the Bruce’s refusal to give up and victory at Bannockburn, and the Declaration of Arbroath (the closest thing Scotland has to a declaration of independence). For England the wars were less of a defining period but they did, for the middle ages at least set out the limits of English kingship.
Pros
Good overview account to the Scottish wars of Independence
Effective discussion of sources where needed
Balanced account
Cons
Lack of analysis of what is behind the action
Since there are only 300 pages to cover 70 years of turmoil and war Freedom’s Sword can only provide a rather broad outline. A campaign can be over in a couple of pages. But of course most campaigns don't result in anything so can be skipped over fairly quickly. The biggest, and most important ones do get rather more attention. This kind of approach does have upsides and downsides. On the upside the book remains pretty fast paced throughout - we don't hear about every little siege or skirmish instead often simply being told the change in general situation after a couple of campaigning seasons have passed; who is on the up who is on the down. The downside is that we need to take Traquair’s judgement on what is important and don't get to hear about what might be interesting characters and campaigns.
The main downside however is that there is analysis of what goes on behind the campaigning. When momentum swings to the Scots after Bannockburn it is rather unclear why the English do so little to defend the north; did they lack money? It is also unclear why the English continued with such a flawed approach to the campaigns for so long. There is little on the economic impact, or the logistics required. The splits within the English government are mentioned, but it is unclear why this prevents action - particularly as similar splits in Scotland did not prevent action.
For a defining moment it can be difficult to get sufficient distance to narrate even after so many years. And Freedom’s Sword is a title that rather implies sympathy to the Scots side, but for the most part Traquair takes a balanced approach. As this is politics and war in a distinctly machiavellian world most participants come out pretty badly. I certainly found I dislike the national hero Robert the Bruce just as much when I finished as when I started - I find it hard to warm to someone who changed sides and murdered a rival in a church.
Medieval history can be difficult to interpret and the sources can be very uneven, written long after the event, or very biased. Fortunately Traquair doesn't accept everything at face value and quite often attempts to work out what he believes is the most likely course of events. Though with such a broad brush book this can't be mentioned for everything in much detail - just important or contentious events.
There are maps, there are general ones of the theatre of campaigns, and of the most important battles like Bannockburn and Halidon Hill. However there are others for which it would be useful, none for Nevilles Cross despite it essentially being the final one, and I would have particularly liked one for the situation at Weardale as I thought it was difficult to understand the positions creating the stalemate from the text.
Read Freedom’s Sword for a good overview of this defining period of Scottish history.
Pros
Good overview account to the Scottish wars of Independence
Effective discussion of sources where needed
Balanced account
Cons
Lack of analysis of what is behind the action
Since there are only 300 pages to cover 70 years of turmoil and war Freedom’s Sword can only provide a rather broad outline. A campaign can be over in a couple of pages. But of course most campaigns don't result in anything so can be skipped over fairly quickly. The biggest, and most important ones do get rather more attention. This kind of approach does have upsides and downsides. On the upside the book remains pretty fast paced throughout - we don't hear about every little siege or skirmish instead often simply being told the change in general situation after a couple of campaigning seasons have passed; who is on the up who is on the down. The downside is that we need to take Traquair’s judgement on what is important and don't get to hear about what might be interesting characters and campaigns.
The main downside however is that there is analysis of what goes on behind the campaigning. When momentum swings to the Scots after Bannockburn it is rather unclear why the English do so little to defend the north; did they lack money? It is also unclear why the English continued with such a flawed approach to the campaigns for so long. There is little on the economic impact, or the logistics required. The splits within the English government are mentioned, but it is unclear why this prevents action - particularly as similar splits in Scotland did not prevent action.
For a defining moment it can be difficult to get sufficient distance to narrate even after so many years. And Freedom’s Sword is a title that rather implies sympathy to the Scots side, but for the most part Traquair takes a balanced approach. As this is politics and war in a distinctly machiavellian world most participants come out pretty badly. I certainly found I dislike the national hero Robert the Bruce just as much when I finished as when I started - I find it hard to warm to someone who changed sides and murdered a rival in a church.
Medieval history can be difficult to interpret and the sources can be very uneven, written long after the event, or very biased. Fortunately Traquair doesn't accept everything at face value and quite often attempts to work out what he believes is the most likely course of events. Though with such a broad brush book this can't be mentioned for everything in much detail - just important or contentious events.
There are maps, there are general ones of the theatre of campaigns, and of the most important battles like Bannockburn and Halidon Hill. However there are others for which it would be useful, none for Nevilles Cross despite it essentially being the final one, and I would have particularly liked one for the situation at Weardale as I thought it was difficult to understand the positions creating the stalemate from the text.
Read Freedom’s Sword for a good overview of this defining period of Scottish history.
February 18, 2013
Scholarly and highly readable. Peter Traquair has worked painstakingly to write a balanced and pragmatic account of this turbulent era of Anglo-Scottish conflict. There are no goodies and baddies, no melodrama, the facts themselves filled in with measured author comments based on his knowledge give a story that is human and action-packed. It's a pleasure to read a factual book that tackles a subject in depth and yet remains a page-turner. Whilst the next book I aim to write is to be a sequel to The Dragunov Deception, I have plans for a novel set in the Scottish Borders and Peter Traquair's book will be a key work of reference for me.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews