Robert the Bruce, Born in .........

[User62651]

As has been said. Most of the
“ british” archers at agincourt were welsh. Maybe its time the scotish thanked the welsh for helping them in not learning french if they had won. Although the eiffel tower would of looked good at the side of Edinburgh castle. 😉

Have you not seen Braveheart? - the English King's only gay son and heir wouldn't get his French bride up the duff so Wallace bed her instead (before they hacked him up) and so all subsequent monarchs of England we're actually half Wallace/Scottish half French!

#thisthreadisgettingverysilly

 

[Doon frae Troon]

As has been said. Most of the
“ british” archers at agincourt were welsh. Maybe its time the scotish thanked the welsh for helping them in not learning french if they had won. Although the eiffel tower would of looked good at the side of Edinburgh castle. 😉

I think Scotland may have been in an alliance with France at that time.

BTW In case it was not as obvious as intended the 'Archers' post was posted in the same jocular manner at the OP.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

most historical texts state most of the archers were welsh. look up the indenture rolls for the arm of Henry V.

as for the difference between the archers between 1314 and 1415 there is 100 years difference and military tactics had changed in the time. the longbow tactic had been honed by the Edward iii in the 100 years war at Crecy and Poitiers. Edward the 1st favored heavy cavalry, the french downfall in all but the later years or the 100 years war

What worked for Wallace at Stirling Bridge (boggy ground more than the schiltrom) failed him miserably at Falkirk (no boggy ground). Bruce's success at Bannockburn was his imaginative and flexible generalship.

 

[turkish]

We'll, if Wallace was born in Australia, why couldn't The Bruce have been born in Essex ........ 😉

Mel Gibson is American ;-)

 

[patricks148]

I think Scotland may have been in an alliance with France at that time.

BTW In case it was not as obvious as intended the 'Archers' post was posted in the same jocular manner at the OP.

indeed, Scottish armies fought on the french side in the 100 years war. Most Famously at the battle of Verneuil in 1424. a Scottish lord was even constable of France in this time.But then saying that the king of England and all his dependents were french anyway all written court correspondence where written it french and Henry the v was the first king to actually speak English i believe.

 

[Tashyboy]

Why would we thank them for that?

They saved the british from talking french. Inc the Scottish. Not just the English. 👍

Thankyou Taff. See thats not hard 😉

 

[DCB]

They saved the british from talking french. Inc the Scottish. Not just the English. 👍

Thankyou Taff. See thats not hard 😉

Ah, but..... The Auld Alliance pre-dates Agencourt by 120 years, so, Scottish Nobles probably did have a smattering of French

 

[Doon frae Troon]

They saved the british from talking french. Inc the Scottish. Not just the English. 👍

Thankyou Taff. See thats not hard 😉

'The British' must have been time travellers then.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Really we should have been French speakers following 1066. Apparently the French gave up trying to enforce peasants to speak French as they were too stupid and just couldn't manage it .

All said and done, this happened a very, very long time ago. Move on, let it go. (Saying that, this is all going to be stirred up again by a new Mary Queen of Scots film )

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

The simple fact is that Robert I was a brilliant general and a great and well-loved man of the people. The record tells us that he did not ask of those fighting with him anything that he would not do or suffer himself - and see the Declaration of Arbroath of 1320... Indeed it was only under his rule that Scotland united into a single recognisable entity that could be called the Kingdom of Scotland - before then it had been spilt between various competing and warring families - some with historical links back to kings from over the seas.

 

[HughJars]

They saved the british from talking french. Inc the Scottish. Not just the English. 👍

Thankyou Taff. See thats not hard 😉

Not seeing how that's a good thing? Scots & French had an alliance long before we were colonised by the English. I'd be happy being more Franco than guff tbh.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

The simple fact is that Robert I was a brilliant general and a great and well-loved man of the people. The record tells us that he did not ask of those fighting with him anything that he would not do or suffer himself - and see the Declaration of Arbroath of 1320... Indeed it was only under his rule that Scotland united into a single recognisable entity that could be called the Kingdom of Scotland - before then it had been spilt between various competing and warring families - some with historical links back to kings from over the seas.

The records were written by the winners! Can we seriously trust them?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

The records were written by the winners! Can we seriously trust them?

The records I refer to are about what the Scots thought of their King - and in respect of the Dec of Arbroath. I am not talking of what the records said about the English and Edward II. However following Bannockburn Robert I sought and agreed a peace settlement with Edward II that did not require anything to be forfeit by the English.

In fact Robert voluntarily relinquished some lands in England that were held by Scots lords - these Scots lords were not happy - but Robert recognised that handing back these lands would go some way to defuse the warring between the nations and result in peace. And it did - for a while - then Bruce died in 1329 with the next King of Scotland being the boy David II - in minority - with John Balliol (of the other family contesting the Scottish throne) ruling though never being crowned. And even although Robert I left behind a well structured country at peace with it's big brother neighbour - things quite rapidly deteriorated. After being crowned David II invaded England but was captured and Scotland had to pay 100,000 merks for his release - and that knackered the country.

Here endeth a wee lesson in Scottish kings of the early 14th century. Bottom line - it matters not where Robert Bruce was born - he was of Norman descent and the great-great-grandson of King David I - but also of was a great and much vaunted Scottish king - and not just in recent centuries.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

The records I refer to are about what the Scots thought of their King - and in respect of the Dec of Arbroath. I am not talking of what the records said about the English and Edward II. However following Bannockburn Robert I sought and agreed a peace settlement with Edward II that did not require anything to be forfeit by the English.

In fact Robert voluntarily relinquished some lands in England that were held by Scots lords - these Scots lords were not happy - but Robert recognised that handing back these lands would go some way to defuse the warring between the nations and result in peace. And it did - for a while - then Bruce died in 1329 with the next King of Scotland being the boy David II - in minority - with John Balliol (of the other family contesting the Scottish throne) ruling though never being crowned. And even although Robert I left behind a well structured country at peace with it's big brother neighbour - things quite rapidly deteriorated. After being crowned David II invaded England but was captured and Scotland had to pay 100,000 merks for his release - and that knackered the country.

Here endeth a wee lesson in Scottish kings of the early 14th century. Bottom line - it matters not where Robert Bruce was born - he was of Norman descent and the great-great-grandson of King David I - but also of was a great and much vaunted Scottish king - and not just in recent centuries.

Which commoners were educated to write their thoughts down! Are you seriously suggesting it was someone outside of court.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

The records were written by the winners! Can we seriously trust them?

This is something that should never be forgotten. Cesar invaded Gaul and committed genocide yet he is heralded as a great general and conquerer because he won, Romans wrote records, Gauls didn't. Romans were civilised, every one else was a barbarian. Repeat that through most of early history. History is largely written by the victors.

 

[USER1999]

Here endeth a wee lesson in Scottish kings of the early 14th century. Bottom line - it matters not where Robert Bruce was born - he was of Norman descent and the great-great-grandson of King David I - but also of was a great and much vaunted Scottish king - and not just in recent centuries.

Scottish Kings, or Kings of Scotland?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Scottish Kings, or Kings of Scotland?

Well actually apparently he preferred the title King of Scots as he saw himself as King of the people before the land.

 

[Tashyboy]

Ah, but..... The Auld Alliance pre-dates Agencourt by 120 years, so, Scottish Nobles probably did have a smattering of French

And theres me thinking the smell was whisky. Its garlic 😳

 

[HughJars]

The records were written by the winners! Can we seriously trust them?

Which commoners were educated to write their thoughts down! Are you seriously suggesting it was someone outside of court.

Dear Scots, don't read up on your history, it may be flawed, unlike English history which is perfect. What a load of Guff.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Dear Scots, don't read up on your history, it may be flawed, unlike English history which is perfect. What a load of Guff.

Awww petal, have I touched a nerve?
Just one question, were did I say England’s or any other Nation’s history was any more reliable?