HONOUR THE BRUCE!!!!!!!

[dbb9]

This is a thread which was developing in the Clans Forum. Readers may look there for earlier contributions to which this is a reply.

In response to the enquiry in this forum by "explorer" I would recommend "Scotland - The Making of the Kingdom" by AAM Duncan, "Robert Bruce and the Community of the Realm of Scotland" by GWS Barrow and "Scotland - A New History" by Michael Lynch. All of these provide authentic history to counter the Mel Gibson distortion of Bruce's character in "Braveheart".

The notion of patriotic national pride existed in Scotland for many centuries before Bruce. Even in 83ad the Caledonians could organise to defend their territory against the Romans!

During previous reigns up to the death of Alexander III in 1286 there had been relatively free and friendly movement across the English border with Scots holding lands in England, but this did not affect the integrity of the independence of the Scottish realm.

Bruce had good reason to submit to Edward's overlordship in 1302. He was Earl of Carrick, lord of Annandale, lord of an estate in England with a house in London and the manor of Tottenham. He also held part of Garioch and was keeper of three royal forests. As guardian of his nephew he had responsibility for the fortress of Kildrummy. It was hardly for personal gain that Bruce put all this wealth at stake by defiantly claiming the throne of the nation at its most abject point of submission.

Where family and national interests diverged, many lords would naturally put the best interests of their family first. When the country was over-run by Edward's troops few of the Scots nobility were prepared to publicly support Bruce. However, it does not follow that the mediaeval social elite had no national pride. For example, following the death of Alexander III the Scots nobles held a ‘parliament’ and appointed 6 Guardians who provided stable government for the country until John Balliol was enthroned in Nov 1292. Admittedly they did not provide leadership to resist Edward after John was exiled and hedged their bets after the Stirling Bridge victory in 1297 by allowing Wallace to be appointed sole Guardian. It was almost certainly Bruce who knighted Wallace in March 1298. A large body of the Scots lords, including the Bruce and the Comyn factions were committed to the struggle against England, prior to the July 1298 Falkirk defeat. It is doubtful whether Wallace could have escaped from the Falkirk battlefield unless someone on horseback like Bruce had rescued him. After the battle Bruce destroyed the castle at Ayr so Edward could not rest his army there on his route home.

Following the martyrdom of Wallace in August 1305 Bruce became single-minded in continuing the struggle to win Scottish independence. Bruce and Comyn privately decided that Bruce would give up his lands to Comyn who in return would support Bruce’s claim to the throne. Bruce or his men slew Comyn in February 1306, probably because Comyn had informed Edward of their pact. From that point on Bruce was publicly committed to opposing Edward. Bruce suffered early defeats at Methven and Dal Righ and lost Kildrummy. Most of the Scots nobility had given up the struggle against Edward with the followers of Balliol and Comyn being opposed to Bruce's kingship. Edward executed Bruce's brothers and other supporters and jailed his wife and sisters. Excommunicated from the church and with Edward's men looking for him as he took refuge on the island of Rathlin, the way back must have looked almost impossible to Bruce.

It took determination, courage, political acumen and military brilliance to rebuild his army and supporters until they were strong enough to repel the enemy forces at Bannockburn in 1314. With Scotland reclaimed from English rule, Bruce reigned for a further 14 years.

Wallace had galvanised Scottish national pride, Edward tried to suppress it with his garrisons but Bruce finally restored it with independence!

[ANDY-J]

I do not believe that a concept such as national pride existed prior to the modern era.Having spent the last four years studying European history and having examined numerous original texts from the period,I have found no evidence to suggest that people in feudal societies were motivated by any sense of patriotism.The Scottish high nobility of the period were,with a few notable exceptions,driven primarily by a desire for personal gain as is proven by their willingness to change sides whenever it was profitable.Those further down the social hierarchy meanwhile may have been willing to fight in defence of traditional local rights and customs or in support of their feudal superior but I have seen no proof that they even had any real sense of a national Scottish identity.People in our modern society often entertain some vague and nebulous notion of patriotic pride.It is easy to convince ourselves that our ancestors were freedom fighters involved in a patriotic crusade for national honour.I do not believe for one minute that any Scot whose life was governed by the often bleak and unpleasant realities of mediaeval feudalism could have entertained the slightest notion of fighting for patriotic pride.

[dbb9]

What kind of patriotic national pride do you think exists now, which was not present in earlier times? I am sure that many Scots both then and now would say they were proud to be Scots. This does not necessarily mean they would willingly fight to the death for their country unless they were contractually bound to do so. I doubt whether a higher proportion of Scots today would be prepared to die for their country than followed Wallace at Falkirk.

[Edited by dbb9 on 9th January 2001 at 09:17]