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

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

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?

You do know that the Declaration of Arbroath (of 1320) is a real document and a contemporaneous copy of it is held the National Archives of Scotland.

One interesting aspect of it was that it states that, although Robert I has delivered the Scottish people from the peril and atrocities perpetrated by England under their presumed rule of Scotland, if the actions of anyone - including Robert I - put that independence at risk then the Scottish nobility would nullify that risk - and if that meant removing Robert I then they would do so - because Scotland is and always had been independent from England and always would be.

 

[patricks148]

You do know that the Declaration of Arbroath (of 1320) is a real document and a contemporaneous copy of it is held the National Archives of Scotland.

One interesting aspect of it was that it states that, although Robert I has delivered the Scottish people from the peril and atrocities perpetrated by England under their presumed rule of Scotland, if the actions of anyone - including Robert I - put that independence at risk then the Scottish nobility would nullify that risk - and if that meant removing Robert I then they would do so - because Scotland is and always had been independent from England and always would be.

what about when James the 1st (6th of Scotland) came to the English throne ?

 

[Deleted member 16999]

You do know that the Declaration of Arbroath (of 1320) is a real document and a contemporaneous copy of it is held the National Archives of Scotland.

One interesting aspect of it was that it states that, although Robert I has delivered the Scottish people from the peril and atrocities perpetrated by England under their presumed rule of Scotland, if the actions of anyone - including Robert I - put that independence at risk then the Scottish nobility would nullify that risk - and if that meant removing Robert I then they would do so - because Scotland is and always had been independent from England and always would be.

Mate, it’s a 700yr old document, that and many many other documents from any Nation in the world I would be sceptical about.
I watched a programme last night about the looting of Iraq museums after the Iraqi wars, they had writing on stone tablets from 12000 years ago in there that stated Aliens visited earth.

 

[lobthewedge]

Do you have a link to prove this absolute. Or is at a Daily Fail equivalent 15th century tall tale.
Was that the same British archers who failed so miserably at Bannockburn. The must have got hold of a decent archery coach in between years.

The archers failed so miserably at Bannockburn because they were so poorly used by Edward II. In their rush to set up camp, the archers were deployed to the rear of the English lines, so when the Scots attacked at dawn the next morning they were rendered useless for fear of hitting their own troops in the back. When some of them did finally move themselves to the flank and started finding Scottish targets, the Scots light horse under command of Robert Keith, scattered them.

The English/Welsh/British longbow was a potent weapon and was key to the success of English armies through medieval times. They didnt require coaching, just the good leadership they had against the Scots at Falkirk in 1298, and even more so at Halidon Hill in 1333.

For what its worth, we will never know for sure where Bruce was born, but it was most likely Turnberry Castle, his mothers seat of power. However, a previous post is absolutely right, this is an insignificant detail given the family and times he was born into. Seems to be a headline grabbing bit of self promotion, given the imminent release of the Outlaw King at the weekend.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

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.

Near naked clansmen, crawling along the edge of the causeway to avoid the archers then knocking the English Heavy horse guys off their horses with long poles.
They then stabbed the hapless heavily armoured horsemen in the nether regions and cut the horses tendons.
The following horsemen then barged into the logjam of slain troops and horses. They then slipped down into the bog where they were quickly dispatched
Seemingly this went on for hours.
Word got back to the Scottish camp of a [premature] great victory so the cooks and camp followers charged over the hill to congratulate them.
The English thought they were re-inforcements and called a retreat which caused even more disasters on the causeway.

Yea ….good leadership from General Bruce, probably helped by poor tactics from the enemy.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Mate, it’s a 700yr old document, that and many many other documents from any Nation in the world I would be sceptical about.
I watched a programme last night about the looting of Iraq museums after the Iraqi wars, they had writing on stone tablets from 12000 years ago in there that stated Aliens visited earth.

The Declaration of Arbroath was a letter that was sent to the Pope stating Scotland's position in respect of it's independence from it's neighbour. It isn't a historical record of how Scotland saw the previous 100 plus years of war with England. And they sent it to the Pope because it was the Pope who had decided that Scotland should come under English rule. Robert I and most of the Scots nobility and clergy disagreed, and following Bannockburn and the defeat of Edward II they decided to declare their intent to be forever an independent nation.

Copies of the original would have been made before the original was sent off to the Pope - because the Scots would have wanted a record of what they were sending to the Pope - and so the copies were all sealed by the King and same nobles and clergy as the original.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

The archers failed so miserably at Bannockburn because they were so poorly used by Edward II. In their rush to set up camp, the archers were deployed to the rear of the English lines, so when the Scots attacked at dawn the next morning they were rendered useless for fear of hitting their own troops in the back. When some of them did finally move themselves to the flank and started finding Scottish targets, the Scots light horse under command of Robert Keith, scattered them.

The English/Welsh/British longbow was a potent weapon and was key to the success of English armies through medieval times. They didnt require coaching, just the good leadership they had against the Scots at Falkirk in 1298, and even more so at Halidon Hill in 1333.

For what its worth, we will never know for sure where Bruce was born, but it was most likely Turnberry Castle, his mothers seat of power. However, a previous post is absolutely right, this is an insignificant detail given the family and times he was born into. Seems to be a headline grabbing bit of self promotion, given the imminent release of the Outlaw King at the weekend.

Indeed - most likely born at Turnberry - but even if born in a part of what is now England, back then that part of England will most likely have been Scottish territory - even though beyond the formal border of Scotland of the time. Kind of like being British (if you so desire) when born in NI today.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Copies of the original would have been made before the original was sent off to the Pope

There’s no way they had photocopiers in them days!

 

[Hobbit]

There’s no way they had photocopiers in them days!

Probably scanned in and faxed. Maybe they used..... chain mail

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Probably scanned in and faxed. Maybe they used..... chain mail

nice one Bri...

 

[lobthewedge]

Just watched outlaw king.

No hint of an English accent from the main man, so defo born in scotland!

 

[Deleted member 18645]

William Wallace was born in America. Came over here to play the part and then unfortunately died at the end. Saw it myself.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Think it was 99% filmed in Scotland at various locations. With part of it filmed at Berwick Upon Tweed and the Northumberland border area.

Just watched it and it was filmed in Scotland

Good film, seems pretty historically correct except I am pretty certain that The Bruce did not have a 'square go' with Edward 11 at Louden Hill.
Chris Pine was a decent lead.

 

[patricks148]

Just watched it and it was filmed in Scotland

Good film, seems pretty historically correct except I am pretty certain that The Bruce did not have a 'square go' with Edward 11 at Louden Hill.
Chris Pine was a decent lead.

watched it on netflix last night, TBH very disappointed with it, wasn't much better than Mels effort on Wallace TBH, glad i didn't pay to see it.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

watched it on netflix last night, TBH very disappointed with it, wasn't much better than Mels effort on Wallace TBH, glad i didn't pay to see it.

Started watching it but didn't find myself getting engaged with it and so only got to 20mins in and haven't yet gone back. Didn't help that almost the first bit of historical exposition given was I thought a bit inaccurate - but will watch again from the start just in case I misread or misheard. It was something about Wallace, Stirling Castle, Stirling Bridge and 1304 and seemed to conflate the battle of 1297 with the siege of Stirling Castle in 1304.

But it's just a film. So will go and watch it again from the start.

 

[lobthewedge]

Started watching it but didn't find myself getting engaged with it and so only got to 20mins in and haven't yet gone back. Didn't help that almost the first bit of historical exposition given was I thought a bit inaccurate - but will watch again from the start just in case I misread or misheard. It was something about Wallace, Stirling Castle, Stirling Bridge and 1304 and seemed to conflate the battle of 1297 with the siege of Stirling Castle in 1304.

But it's just a film. So will go and watch it again from the start.

I would give it another go if I was you. If you are willing to turn a blind eye to some timeline issues (given the time constraints of trying to cram a lot of story into a 2 hour film) they did not a bad job.

The polar opposite of braveheart, in they clearly did their homework on the historical figures and were pretty accurate with little details like coats of arms etc. They also did a good job on the depiction of battles with the ambush at methven, the Douglas larder and Loudon hill pretty accurate (apart from the square go at the end, that was a bit silly and unnecessary).

It could really have done with a large injection of the humour and charisma that made braveheart so popular, very few characters and all a bit dull. If it was me I would have sold it as a series, maybe 5 or 6 episodes and told the whole story with some meat on the bones.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

It could really have done with a large injection of the humour and charisma that made braveheart so popular, very few characters and all a bit dull. If it was me I would have sold it as a series, maybe 5 or 6 episodes and told the whole story with some meat on the bones.

Totally agree, too big a subject to cram into two hours.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

watched it on netflix last night, TBH very disappointed with it, wasn't much better than Mels effort on Wallace TBH, glad i didn't pay to see it.

Watched it all again last night. But yes - much better than Braveheart. Nice visualisation at one point of hanging and drawing a fella - eeeugh!! And sticking Bruce's daughter Marjorie in a cage hanging from the wall of Berwick castle (or was it Roxburgh?) ...not nice...but true. Also pretty brutal reconstruction of a medieval battle with Louden Hill (not chivalrous or glamerous - just bloody murderous carnage). And a decent portrayal of the relationships between Comyn, Bruce and Douglas - and Macdougall and MacDonald. Even my own clan got a mention at one point... We were out in the '45 also.

Though as it didn't go on to 1314 - room for a sequel?

In general - yes - a mini-series covering the life of Bruce would be good - as it could cover the complexities and rivalries that led to Bruce becoming king - and the various relationships the different main families formed with the French and the English.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

All historical films have an element of guesswork in the conversations, liberties taken with timelines and certain settings. They need to happen to keep the story moving, to make things fit within the time allowed. If you kept rigidly to the story then you would need a mini series, not a film. You need to suspend the pedantry for a while, sit back and enjoy the ride.

 

[Hobbit]

Watched it all again last night. But yes - much better than Braveheart. Nice visualisation at one point of hanging and drawing a fella - eeeugh!! And sticking Bruce's daughter Marjorie in a cage hanging from the wall of Berwick castle (or was it Roxburgh?) ...not nice...but true. Also pretty brutal reconstruction of a medieval battle with Louden Hill (not chivalrous or glamerous - just bloody murderous carnage). And a decent portrayal of the relationships between Comyn, Bruce and Douglas - and Macdougall and MacDonald. Even my own clan got a mention at one point... We were out in the '45 also.

Though as it didn't go on to 1314 - room for a sequel?

In general - yes - a mini-series covering the life of Bruce would be good - as it could cover the complexities and rivalries that led to Bruce becoming king - and the various relationships the different main families formed with the French and the English.

Like you, I thought it started slowly. And yes, it did improve but I thought it a little shallow at times. I think you're right, a mini-series might have been better. At least that way they could have given some time to add depth to the characters. Mind you, the guy that played Douglas was excellent. Had me convinced he was a mad berserker! Edward's son played the part well too.