Braveheart

[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.

[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.

[jkdesq]

Daz,

By the time Edward I died, Bruce had weakened the Comyns and had gathered enough strength. Why negotiate with the son, when you have already beaten the father had his friends?

Sure, he could have negotiated. What could he have asked for? Well, his English estates back. The fact that he didn't negotiate with Edward II proves that he was a patriot and not a self-interested flop. My point of view.

[macwilkin]

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.

Don't get me wrong; I think that there is much to be admired in the historical figure of the Bruce, but as Daz and others have pointed out, he had his flaws (just as many other heroes in history have) -- And I must point out here his own actions against opponents, such as the Comyns -- but the Comyns had their black marks as well. I do, however, like historians like Young who carve away the large levels of myth and try to present a more realistic picture of what happened.

I just don't believe that Bruce was a "patriot" or "nationalist" in our idea of what those terms mean -- I think feudalism and more "pragmatic" reasons had a great deal to do with his fight, even though I admire his efforts at Bannockburn -- his actions in Buchan and Badenoch (and for that matter, Ireland) are a different story all together! ;)

Great discussion, though -- I must complement you on your ability to debate and discuss a topic without getting nasty with those who disagree with you.

Cheers,

Todd

[jkdesq]

Todd,

Wow, never seen such a responsive thread on this forum before. Cool!

Anyway, I would agree that the idea of nationalism didn't really exist in the feudal 13th and 14th Century. I wrote a paper for a history class when at Uni on this very point. My thesis was that Scotland was possibly the very first nation, in the modern sense. The idea was this, that after the death of Alexander III, the throne past to the Maid of Norway. Guardians of the Realm were appointed to rule for her in the name of the "Community of the Realm". Later, when Bailol was taken captive by the English and Wallace and Moray were named as Gaurdians of the Realm, they were again appointed by the "Community of the Realm". My pitch in my paper (as I recall, I haven't seen it for years) that the idea of the Community of the Realm was basically the same idea as a nation. The Scots saw themselves as something more than subjects of a king. They saw that, absent a monarch, they had a community or a nation.

In this period, the Scots had an idea that they were a community and wished to have the community identifiable regardless of who sat on the Scottish throne. Case in point, when Edward I negotiated marriage of the Maid of Norway (wish I could remember her name) to the future Edward II, the agreement included that Scottish law would continue, there would be a Scottish Parliament and the Scotland would continue to be a separate Kingdom. I don't think anything like this was negotiated when Mary Queen of Scots married the future Francis II.

Obviously there was tensions. People like the Comyns and the Bruces were fighting and conniving for what a feudal lord would seek -- more lands and benefits from an overlord. But we also see the people of Scotland acting in a way that looks much like a nation -- seeking to have their "Community of the Realm" identifiable even if the throne is swallowed up by another throne.

It is quite possible that Bruce and/or Comyns were guided by feelings of nationality. I think the Scots could be the very first patriots.

[macwilkin]

Todd,

Wow, never seen such a responsive thread on this forum before. Cool!

Anyway, I would agree that the idea of nationalism didn't really exist in the feudal 13th and 14th Century. I wrote a paper for a history class when at Uni on this very point. My thesis was that Scotland was possibly the very first nation, in the modern sense. The idea was this, that after the death of Alexander III, the throne past to the Maid of Norway. Guardians of the Realm were appointed to rule for her in the name of the "Community of the Realm". Later, when Bailol was taken captive by the English and Wallace and Moray were named as Gaurdians of the Realm, they were again appointed by the "Community of the Realm". My pitch in my paper (as I recall, I haven't seen it for years) that the idea of the Community of the Realm was basically the same idea as a nation. The Scots saw themselves as something more than subjects of a king. They saw that, absent a monarch, they had a community or a nation.

In this period, the Scots had an idea that they were a community and wished to have the community identifiable regardless of who sat on the Scottish throne. Case in point, when Edward I negotiated marriage of the Maid of Norway (wish I could remember her name) to the future Edward II, the agreement included that Scottish law would continue, there would be a Scottish Parliament and the Scotland would continue to be a separate Kingdom. I don't think anything like this was negotiated when Mary Queen of Scots married the future Francis II.

Obviously there was tensions. People like the Comyns and the Bruces were fighting and conniving for what a feudal lord would seek -- more lands and benefits from an overlord. But we also see the people of Scotland acting in a way that looks much like a nation -- seeking to have their "Community of the Realm" identifiable even if the throne is swallowed up by another throne.

It is quite possible that Bruce and/or Comyns were guided by feelings of nationality. I think the Scots could be the very first patriots.

Agreed. You've made your case most elquently, and I comend you for it.

Imagine what The Bruce and Comyn could have done together had they put their differences and egos aside?

T.

[jkdesq]

Could it be? Wish we could all go for a beer now! Just leave the Cessingham skin belts at home please.

[highlander_Daz]

"The fact that he didn't negotiate with Edward II proves that he was a patriot and not a self-interested flop. My point of view."

agreed I have a lot of admiration for Bruce, he was a man hedged his bets but in his position Who wouldnt have done the same, he lost a great deal to achieve something that was cruelly wiped out with the stroke of a quill in 1707.

As a king he made difficult choices and decisions, and he could have sat back and been a very rich man, instead he choose to do what he thought was right, so I think your correct.

and one more thing.
Robert Bruce of Scotland needs no apologists -he achived Scottish independance and defeated the English. whats left to apologise for??