Braveheart

[highlander_Daz]

You have to be careful about any "facts" concerning William Wallace, most people make the mistake of refering to stories spread by a chap called "blind Harry" written 200 years after Wallace was murdered, his place and date of birth are not know as facts, with several places laying claim to Wallaces birthplace, whilst his family resided in Elderslie no proof exists he was born there, for years people thought his father was called Malcolm, but it was since shown to be Alan, I think its likely then that Wallace would have had an older brother called Alan.

Wallaces capture was about 2 years after his defeat at Falkirk in which time he encouraged other countries to trade with Scotland, indeed a letter written by Wallace still exists.

Regardless of this, Wallace gave his life for a cause he believed in, he probably wasnt a nice man, he was most likely brutal, cruel and unforgiving, indeed he ordered a gallows to be erected in every town. however He belived that it is wrong for one person to dominate and abuse another for their own ends , and he would use all means at his disposal to bring an end to this, a cause that would end in a cruel and agonising death.

In 1314 Robert the Bruce finally achived independance for Scotland, without Wallace showing it was possible to defeat what was the most powerful and deadly army in the world, I dont think Bruce would have attempeted this.

What Wallace fought for 700 years ago is still as relevant today, for every Longshanks there is a Hitler/Saddam/BinLaden/Mugabe. etc. waiting in the wings.

[jkdesq]

Daz,

I agree with almost everything you say, except that, in my view, Bruce didn't really follow Wallace's example. Wallace was stuck in the mindset that armies needed to meet for pitch battles and "do war" the gentlemen's way. Bruce, ironically of far "nobler" blood, came up with the idea of fighting what was essentially a guerilla, and ungentlemanly, war against the English and the Comyn faction. Further, Bruce developped the strategy of knocking down castles that might fall back into English or Comyn control.

I guess my point is that it is well and good that Wallace developped the pike strategy to give infantry a means to with stand cavalry. But Bruce would never have been triumphant if he merely imitated Wallace. A lone Bruce in Craigencaillie with a pike would not have lasted long. Bruce had to innovate far beyond Wallace's tactics, in order to be successful.

[macwilkin]

Daz,

I agree with almost everything you say, except that, in my view, Bruce didn't really follow Wallace's example. Wallace was stuck in the mindset that armies needed to meet for pitch battles and "do war" the gentlemen's way. Bruce, ironically of far "nobler" blood, came up with the idea of fighting what was essentially a guerilla, and ungentlemanly, war against the English and the Comyn faction. Further, Bruce developped the strategy of knocking down castles that might fall back into English or Comyn control.

I guess my point is that it is well and good that Wallace developped the pike strategy to give infantry a means to with stand cavalry. But Bruce would never have been triumphant if he merely imitated Wallace. A lone Bruce in Craigencaillie with a pike would not have lasted long. Bruce had to innovate far beyond Wallace's tactics, in order to be successful.

Aye, and Bruce, like many other families of the Anglo-Norman aristocracy, sought alliances with the English when it suited his efforts. For instance, very little mention is made of the Battle of Roslin in 1303, when John Comyn and a Scottish army soundly defeated an English force, mostly because the Bruce wasn't there, because he was "riding the fence" and biding his time in the conflict over the throne of Scotland.

Recomended Reading: Allan Young's "Robert the Bruce's Rivals: The Comyns 1212-1314" (Tuckwell Press, 1997) -- one of the best, if not the best, Scottish history books I have read, which presents the Comyn POV and tears down some of the myths perpetuated by pro-Bruce propagandists like Fordun, Bower, et al.

Of course, as a Cumming (Comyn), I'm a wee bit biased! ;) And before anyone accuses me of "Bruce-bashing", our branch, the Cummings of Altyre, were pretty much left alone by the Bruce, unlike our Badenoch cousins.

Courage!

Todd

[An t-Ileach]

...Bruce, ironically of far "nobler" blood, came up with the idea of fighting what was essentially a guerilla, and ungentlemanly, war against the English and the Comyn faction...

It's interesting that at the other end of the country, in north Wales and the Marches, very similar tactics were being used by another Anglo-Norman aristocrat against Edward - Roger de Mortimer (who, unlike Wallace, really did have an affair with Edward II's queen, and who it is conjectured was the actual father of Edward III - described in a review at the time of the release of Braveheart as "Wales' Revenge") - at roughly the same time as Bruce's guerrilla. Edward I was every bit as brutal in Wales as he was in Scotland - as described in Gray's evocative poem "Cold is Cadwallo's tongue, that hushed the stormy main; brave Urien sleeps upon his craggy bed; mountains, ye mourn in vain Modred,...".

I can't help feeling that there may have been an economic impulsion to Edward's imperial policy, as well as the strategic need to subdue dangerous neighbours to his north and west in order to leave him free for his more important French adventures.

Berwick-on-Tweed, a major Hanseatic port, was possibly the richest town in the British Isles, and its revenues would have been invaluable for Edward's campaigns. But without subduing the Scots, for whom it was an important trade entrepot, there would have been no way that he could have grabbed the port's revenues.

[highlander_Daz]

I think in many ways your right, but Bruce and other Nobles had a policy of "appeasment" up to a point, they would negotiate with the English and many times give ground in return for lands etc rather than a "full on" battle.

My point was that Wallaces terms were non negotiable, and at Stirling bridge he defeated probably the biggest and most powerful army in the world, whilst being vastly out numbered. wallace proved that the mighty English army wasnt unbeatable. If this hadnt happened I think Bruce would have carried on this policy of appeasement and negociated a kind of Psudeo-independance with Longshanks son, with Bruce as a puppet king.
Instead Bruce took on the English knowing if they could be beaten once they could be beaten again. and at Bannockburn, Wallaces defeat of the English must have been in the minds of those Scots when they lined up against that mighty English army. and in a way the defeat of Wallace at Falkirk must have been in the mind of the English maybe they thought it was going to be easy?

who knows

[jkdesq]

I am an unapologetic Bruce apologist. Bruce was in an awkward position. He could fight for the English and betray his country. Or, he could fight for Wallace and Baillol (Wallace fought in the name of Baillol) and aid in installing a ruler very much opposed to the Bruces who might ultimately dispossess the Bruce family. It is not suprizing that Bruce flip-flopped a fair bit, prior to his coronation.

Bruce could not have been a pseudo-independant puppet King because Edward I wouldn't have accepted it. My understanding is that the Bruces were so powerful (as great land holders in both England and Scotland) if the Bruces were Kings of Scots, the Bruces could have rivaled the Plantagents for control of England. So, as arbiter of the succession of the Scottish throne following the death of Alexander III and the Maid of Norway, Edward I picked John Bailol (ie. the Comyn's faction). Bruce could not accepted Plantegenat overlordship and be King.

Once Bailol was King, Edward I went out of his way to embarrass, humiliate and emasculate Bailol as King. Bruce wouldn't have wanted to be a puppet, because as Bailol found out, the English are not very nice to their puppets.

Lastly, once Bruce had himself Crowned at Scone, he burnt his bridges. Edward I was so angry that he had three of Bruces brothers hung, drawn and quartered. This was despite the fact that their father was an English nobleman in goodstanding. Edward I went out of his way to humiliate Bruces sisters, daughter and other female relatives. If Bruce was caught, his head would have been on a pike. After his coronation, there was never any ability for Bruce to negotiate with the Plantagets.

I think there are two stages to Bruce's career: pre-Coronation when he was in an awkward position and some flip-flopping can be understoon and post-coronation, when there was no possibility of a negotiated settlement with Edward I.

[macwilkin]

I am an unapologetic Bruce apologist. Bruce was in an awkward position. He could fight for the English and betray his country. Or, he could fight for Wallace and Baillol (Wallace fought in the name of Baillol) and aid in installing a ruler very much opposed to the Bruces who might ultimately dispossess the Bruce family. It is not suprizing that Bruce flip-flopped a fair bit, prior to his coronation.

Bruce could not have been a pseudo-independant puppet King because Edward I wouldn't have accepted it. My understanding is that the Bruces were so powerful (as great land holders in both England and Scotland) if the Bruces were Kings of Scots, the Bruces could have rivaled the Plantagents for control of England. So, as arbiter of the succession of the Scottish throne following the death of Alexander III and the Maid of Norway, Edward I picked John Bailol (ie. the Comyn's faction). Bruce could not accepted Plantegenat overlordship and be King.

Once Bailol was King, Edward I went out of his way to embarrass, humiliate and emasculate Bailol as King. Bruce wouldn't have wanted to be a puppet, because as Bailol found out, the English are not very nice to their puppets.

Lastly, once Bruce had himself Crowned at Scone, he burnt his bridges. Edward I was so angry that he had three of Bruces brothers hung, drawn and quartered. This was despite the fact that their father was an English nobleman in goodstanding. Edward I went out of his way to humiliate Bruces sisters, daughter and other female relatives. If Bruce was caught, his head would have been on a pike. After his coronation, there was never any ability for Bruce to negotiate with the Plantagets.

I think there are two stages to Bruce's career: pre-Coronation when he was in an awkward position and some flip-flopping can be understoon and post-coronation, when there was no possibility of a negotiated settlement with Edward I.

You make some very good points, but can you argue that Bruce was an unabashed Scottish nationalist, as the myth has made him? Or was the Bruce looking out for his own interests (lands, title, the possibility of the throne) and using "patriotism" as a cover? I'm not trying to say you're wrong, just thinking out loud, I suppose...

Two of my good friends are Bruces, btw, and we always have a "wee dram" together -- although one of them attends the same parish I do, and I always make sure I never set wi' my back to him, lest Greyfriars be "reenacted"! ;)

Cheers,

Todd

[jkdesq]

Daibhidh,

I can't argue with you. Scotland and Wales were equally mistreated.

Only think I would add is that England has always been on a conquest streak: the early Kingdoms fighting against each other and with the Scots and Welsh; then the English participation in the Crusades, then into France and the One Hundred Years War; then into Wales and Scotland fulltime; then into Ireland; then privateering against the Spanish and into the New World; then all around the world.

The period of time between the Second World War and today is the only time England has existed without England having extraterritorial ambitions.

[highlander_Daz]

Er -thats not a bad argument apart from the fact that Edward the first was dead in 1314 the time of Bannockburn so Bruce did have a choice to negotiate with Edward the second who is recorded as more "reasonable" than longshanks- Bruce was in a difficult position and he was forced to get in bed with the English many times however he eventually achived Wallaces dream, history records Bruce as a hero and like all heros he was flawed, but on that day in 1314 he did Scotland proud.

[jkdesq]

Todd,

I guess my response would be that Bruce lost alot to fight for Scotland. He lost his inheritance to very substantial lands in England -- more valuable than his Scottish properties. He also lost family and friends. Of four brothers, three were brutally murdered. Many of his friends and political allies were also brutally killed by the English or the Comyns. He lived for three or four years in caves, despite growing up as one of the most privileged children in either kingdoms. He was a desparado for a period of time.

It would have been very easy for him to just live on the wealth of the Bruces English estates. However, he followed the call of his mother's gaelic blood and fought, eventually, for Scottish freedom. He sacrificed everything to fight the Planteganets. I know it is the stuff of myths, but I choose to believe it. How else can you explain Bruces willingness to sacrifice the very lives of his brothers and his friends.