Red Comyn at Falkirk

 

As mentioned in previous posts, John Comyn of Badenoch (the 'Red Comyn') is regarded by many as a traitor to Scotland, because he allegedly abandoned William Wallace at the battle of Falkirk in 1298. So let's take a closer look at this. The tale of Comyn's treachery comes from John Fordun, a Scottish chronicler writing in the late fourteenth century, many years after the battle. Fordun wrote:

'For on account of the ill-will, begotten of the spring of envy, which the Comyns had conceived towards the said William [Wallace], they, with their accomplices, forsook the field, and escaped unhurt'.

Fordun also states that the Scots were defeated thanks to Robert de Bruce, the later victor of Bannockburn, who led the English cavalry to attack Wallace's men in the rear. Therefore, if we are to credit Fordun, then Comyn AND Bruce must be regarded as traitors. You cannot pick and choose. Many are willing to condemn Comyn, but only a brave soul dares to attack the indestructible legend of the hero-king, Robert de Bruce.

Fordun was writing utter nonsense. To start with, there is no evidence whatever that John Comyn was even present at the battle of Falkirk. The only detailed contemporary account of the battle comes from Walter of Guisborough. Of the behaviour of the Scottish nobles, Guisborough wrote:

'As soon as our men [the English] approached, the Scots cavalry fled without striking a blow, a few only remaining to give orders to the footsoldiers...”

Notice that Guisborough doesn't even mention Comyn. He also states that a few of the nobles stayed to help the infantry. If Comyn was present, he might have been among those who chose to stay. We have absolutely no idea, and it is unjust to convict any man on no evidence.

As for Bruce, we know that he was far to the west at the time of the battle, on his lands at Ayr.

In summary: both men acquitted, m'lud. Enough of this nonsense. ENOUGH.