Thesis: During his leadership, William Wallace demonstrated that British army was not undefeatable and that no army, in fact is, if the right circumstances stand on the other side. In addition, it is not the size of the fighting army that decides the outcome of the battle, but rather military tactics used by the leaders.
• William Wallace was a son of Sir Malcolm Wallace, a minor knight. He was born around 1270 near Paisley. After his father was killed he was raised by his uncle. He did not have any land and was not trained in military tactic. He was rather “a man of the hour, advanced from a successful guerrilla leader to a skillful general.
• Wallace linked his forces with Andrew de Moray. He was a son of a noble family and was trained in military tactics. Some historians say that he was the one behind the tactics for the battle. In addition, many argue that he would have shadowed William as a hero of the Scottish War of Independence if he hadn’t died two months after the Battle at Stirling. However, if it wasn’t the collaboration of Wallace and de Moray, the outcome might have not been the same.
• Since he was of minor gentry he was more likely to become the hero of the common men. The could relate to him more easily. In fact, many Scots of all classes flocked to Wallace. This was
…show more content…
This battle showed that English army was not invincible. The access point to Stirling was a wooden bridge. The bridge could take only two people side by side, and it would take hours for the whole English army to go over it. Wallace’s army was highly outnumbered (different sources indicate different numbers). However, much time was spent on planning the battle. As soon as enough of English army crossed the bridge, Wallace ordered a group of spearmen to go to offence. The bridge was cut off, and British were cut off. Most of the ones that crossed were slaughtered. English leaders were
... combat power against a numerically superior, well armed, and highly motivated enemy. His unwillingness to adapt to changing conditions was unrealistic and proved fatal.
It is far easier for us in the present than it was for those at Gettysburg, to look back and determine the path that the leaders should have taken. As students, studying battles such as this, we have the advantage of hindsight, knowing the outcome. Nonetheless, we can still learn valuable lessons from it. To do so, this analysis will explore some of the decisions of the leaders at Gettysburg, and how they were affected by the operational variables. This essay will scrutinize some of the leaders at Gettysburg, and the impact of their actions. The outcome of this analysis will show that what was true in 1863 is still true today. While many variables are vital to a successful army on the battlefield, none should be neglected. Each variable discussed in this examination will prove to be important, but the information battle will be paramount in the battle of Gettysburg.
William Wallace is considered a legend in Scotland. For years, England and Scotland were at war, and behind many of the battles for Scotland’s independence was William Wallace. While the information about him, like any good hero, might be over exaggerated by some historians, what’s true is that he gave the country hope that Scotland could be free from English Tyranny. For years after he died, others took his place in saving Scotland from English rule.
...didn’t over step his authority or attempt to subvert the army for his own purposes. Instead, George Washington sets the example of the military commander who was subservient to civilian political leadership. He also showed patience and coolness in the face of adversity. On many occasions in the book, the author cites Washington’s expressions of doubt and fears of failure, yet Washington never showed fear or doubt in action in front of his troops.
Army to take the Ridge. This essay will prove that after many struggles, and careful
At the beginning of the war, the preconceptions of each side show exactly why Britain was destined for failure. On the American team,
Many suspect that they were with Washington only to maximize the hate on both sides of the battle. They went against Washington’s orders to not be the aggressors. Soon large units of British and American soldiers were sent to settle what should have been small battles. The French however were prepared to fight back and even had the Indians as allies to help with upcoming battles. In July, Braddock’s army which consisted of over 2000 British soldiers rode west with George Washington and came upon 250 plus French soldiers with over 600 Indians allies. Nearly 1000 British were killed, unlike George Washington who was unhurt during the battle was soon promoted to commander of the Virginia army for his bravery. (Roark 146)
...rned the essential plans that a leader would need to lead him troops. He also had the morale and spirits to keep the troops ready to fight for the freedom they wanted, as well as his ability to command such troops in placement and tactics.
In his essay, “Deciderization; 2007,” David Foster Wallace Argues: Part of our emergency is that it’s so tempting to do this sort of thing now, to retreat to narrow arrogance, pre-formed positions, rigid filter, the ‘moral clarity’ of the immature. The alternative is dealing with massive, high- entropy amounts of info and ambiguity and conflict and flux; its continually discovering new areas of personal ignorance and delusion. In sum, to really try to be informed and literate today is to feel stupid nearly all the time, and to need help. That’s about as clear as I can put it. What Wallace is trying to say that the people of today’s world are either Objective or subjective and nothing in between; therefore, the objective type of people are all
Leahy, Stephen M. "The Historical Battle over Dispatching American Troops." USA Today (Farmingdale). July 1999: 10-12. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 07 May. 2014.
Warfare was in a state of transition. Older commanders and generals in the French and British militaries were very cavalry and infantry focused. These commanders believed that cavalry, infantry, and artillery would assure victory in any circumstance, against any foe. They clung to the static tactics of the bygone World War I era. World War I had been fought primarily on French soil, and the military as well as the government never wanted that to happen again, therefore they wanted to reinforce their main border against any future German. Little did they know that only twenty two years later they would be bested by German forces in a way that would shock the world. This research will be analyzing many important assumptions, oversights,...
It is because of Gordon and others like him, that the Union was able to win the war. On
Robert Lee makes bold moves to win victories. Lee was outnumbered two to one at Chancellorsville in May 1863; instead of just defending against the Union armies, he made an audacious move and split his army into two to encircle the enemy. Without Lee’s courageous move, the Confederacy might have lost another battle. But even if Lee was defeated, his performance would still stay on tract. When Lee was defeated at Antietam in September 1862, he quickly withdrew the remnants of his forces across the Potomac, reorganized his army, and res...
...e gun, it seemed, the greater the owner‘s pride in it.” (McCullough 33) The Continental army certainly did not look like an army yet these people were brought together in this fight for freedom and prevailed even winning the support of Americans who had no hope the British would be defeated.” Merchant Erving had sided with the Loyalists primarily because he thought the rebellion would fail. But the success of Washington‘s army at Boston had changed his mind as it had for many” (McCullough 108). The reader must comprehend the power of this accomplishment for the rag-tag army. “Especially for those who had been with Washington and who knew what a close call it was at the beginning-how often circumstance, storms, contrary winds, the oddities or strengths of individual character had made the difference- the outcome seemed little short of a miracle.” (McCullough 294).