IT was in this week of the year 1297 that one of the greatest victories over the English during the Wars of Independence was won by William Wallace and Sir Andrew De Moray, or Murray, as I prefer to call him.

Second only to Bannockburn in importance as a Scottish triumph, the Battle of Stirling Bridge on September 11, 1297, some 727 years ago this coming Wednesday, is a subject that has fascinated me for many years and recently I visited the site again.

I have written about it before, but recently I have studied the battle much more closely and reached a conclusion which may offend some English readers. It is based on the facts, and my conclusion, which will feature at the end of this column, is actually due to English sources.

READ MORE: Edinburgh: Thread linking infamous characters Maggie and Deacon

There is no contemporaneous account of the battle by a Scottish chronicler, but the generally accepted version of what occurred at Stirling was written about 170 years later by Blind Harry the poet who composed The Actes And Deidis Of The Illustre And Vallyeant Campioun Schir William Wallace, more commonly known as The Wallace.

Blind Harry certainly gets a lot more right than he does wrong, and that is also true of the makers of the Oscar-winning movie Braveheart who rightly made Wallace the “goodie” and King Edward Longshanks the “baddie”. When you see how American filmmakers butcher their own nation’s history, at least screenwriter Randall Wallace and actor/director Mel Gibson got the basic details right.

I feel sorry, however, for those people who have watched the Braveheart version of the battle which misses out a rather essential detail in its account of the action at Stirling, namely the bridge. I am presuming that readers know all about the events leading up to Wallace’s rebellion in May 1297, including the murder of his wife, so will go straight to the battle.

Randall Wallace acknowledged Blind Harry as his principal source, but I prefer English chronicles such as Lanercost, Guisborough and Scalacronica. They were also written years after the event, but Sir Thomas Grey, whose Scalacronica was much adopted by Walter of Guisborough, certainly knew what he was writing about since his own father, also Thomas, was one of the soldiers surprised by Wallace at Lanark where he started his rebellion against the English occupation of Scotland that followed the disastrous first Battle of Dunbar in 1296.

Grey’s Scalacronica states: “In the month of May, 1297, William Wallace was chosen by the commons of Scotland as leader to raise war against the English, and he at the outset slew William de Heselrig at Lanark, the King’s Sheriff of Clydesdale.

The said William Wallace came by night upon the said sheriff and surprised him, when Thomas de Gray, who was at that time in the suite of the said sheriff, was left stripped for dead in the mellay (sic) when the English were defending themselves.

“The said Thomas lay all night naked between two burning houses which the Scots had set on fire, whereof the heat kept life in him until he was recognised at daybreak and carried off by William de Lundy, who caused him to be restored to health.”

Perhaps not an unbiased writer, but Grey Junior’s facts can be trusted.

Readers will also know the bare facts of the battle. Wallace and Murray’s forces joined together at Abbey Craig north of the Forth at Stirling, and waited on the northern English army, led by the Earl of Surrey, also known as Warenne.

The 5000 to 6000 Scots were outnumbered at least two to one. Surrey started to cross the narrow bridge over the Forth at Stirling but when a good portion of his cavalry and foot soldiers had crossed the Forth, Wallace and Murray led a lightning charge that smashed through the English forces. They tried to retreat over the bridge which possibly collapsed. The remainder of the English army fled southwards with Surrey at their head.

Here’s how the Lanercost Chronicle puts it: “They allowed as many of the English to cross the bridge as they could hope to overcome, and then, having blocked the bridge, they slaughtered all who had crossed over, among whom perished the Treasurer of England, Hugh de Cressingham, of whose skin William Wallace caused a broad strip to be taken from the head to the heel, to make therewith a baldrick for his sword.

The Earl of Warenne escaped with difficulty and with a small following, so hotly did the enemy pursue them.”

This is Grey’s description which accords with Lanercost: “William Wallace, who, being at hand in order of battle, allowed so many of the English as he pleased to cross over the said bridge, and, at the right moment, attacked them, caused the bridge to be broken, where many of the English perished, with Hugh de Cressingham, the King’s Treasurer, and it was said that the Scots caused him to be flayed.”

A brilliant victory, then, though Longshanks would take revenge at Falkirk the following year. My conclusion is that Wallace and Murray laid their ground perfectly and there is no doubt that the English army walked into the trap that the Scots had set. Why did experienced leaders such as Surrey make such a colossal error? The answer can only be simple arrogance.

READ MORE: Drawing a line to the origins of the Border we know

They thought they had overwhelming power and were prepared to take a risk by crossing the bridge, knowing full well that only a few men could march astride over it at a time.

If you go to the location and look around, you do not need to be a military genius to see that the English army should have fallen back across the bridge and awaited the Scottish troops there. Instead, they continued to file onto the bridge until it was too crowded.

We do not know whether Wallace had ordered the foundations of the bridge to be weakened, but it did not matter as the sheer weight of numbers caused the bridge to collapse.

Wallace and Murray timed their charge to perfection so clever Scottish tactics allied to English arrogance won the day.