To all those history buffs out there:

My uncle recently traced my ancestry back to Robert the Bruce (which made me very excited). I quickly told one of my friends who I frequently discuss matters of history about, and he has (jokingly) been telling me I come from a  line of betrayers. I argued that the movie "Braveheart" took a lot of literary license when they portrayed Robert as betraying Wallace. He continues to tell me- even though I have found nothing to support it- that Robert's betrayal is still a valid theory.

I was wondering if anyone can shed light on the real truth behind Wallace and Robert the Bruce's relationship.

Tags: bruce, history, robert, scotland, the, wallace, willaim

Views: 14812

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Robert the Bruce was the hero of Scotland and killed more English than Wallace could ever have imagined. Historicaly, Wallace was a commoner with his own lands, killed the sherrif over a quarrel about a girl, won a battle at Stirling Bridge (not the castle) and was captured and executed. That's about the sum total of knowledge concerning Wallace. Robert the Bruce on the other hand has many volumes of books written about him that are available at your local library. I suggest starting with "Robert the Bruce, King of Scots" by Ronald McNair Scott. Hollywood is crap, it's not history, it's entertainment and bravo for you searching for the real truth.

http://www.amazon.com/Robert-Bruce-Ronald-McNair-Scott/dp/0786703296
thanks I'll have to check into that. I knew that Gibson's version was obviously skewed, but I didn't know by that much.
Skewed? More like butchered. I've always wondered why Hollywood takes history and distorts it so badly when real history is a hundred times more exciting and interesting than any made up story.
Maybe because scriptwriters are cheaper than historians in Los Angeles?

@John Schaefer

[QUOTE= John Schaefer]


Robert the Bruce was the hero of Scotland and killed more English than Wallace could ever have imagined. Historicaly, Wallace was a commoner with his own lands, killed the sherrif over a quarrel about a girl, won a battle at Stirling Bridge (not the castle) and was captured and executed. That's about the sum total of knowledge concerning Wallace.

[/QUOTE]

Bollocks to your comment dude...if this is the case then why on earth is there a 300 foot monument in Stirling named the william wallace monument lolz

Hahahahaa

No. Braveheart is possibly the most unhistorical, inaccurate 'historical' epic ever produced. It took a very, very general idea and fantasized the rest.

Robert the Bruce was a Scottish hero and patriot. Occasionally he aligned with the English, but only for political reasons, and he never, never betrayed William Wallace or any other Scot, and fought and obtained Scottish independence. Robert the Bruce wasn't even at the Battle of Falkirk.

If Mel Gibson is involved with a 'historical' movie, take it as fiction.

And I like Braveheart.
While we're at it, The Bruce wasn't a self doubting wussy either. And Wallace was not the father of Edward the Third.
No. Longshanks had broken with the Churchs' good graces. The word "Pagan" in the movie references that aspect of King Edward. At that time in History, "Pagan" was anything not a devoted Papist.
Edward the 2nd was in fact, at the very least, bisexual. (While he fathered at least 5 children, he also had a very well known homosexual relationship.) His Homosexuality eventually manifested itself in his being executed by having a red hot iron inserted in to his rectum until he was completely impaled upon it.

William Wallace was ten times the General that Robert the Bruce was. Robert the Bruces' success was not so much his own success, but a blessing of Edwards' death and the extraordinarily inept leadership of his son. Robert the Bruce didn't win, so much as Ed the sequel just screwed up everything he did.
well, as for Edward the second, the only thing in the film that was not historical was how feminine Edward was (Which we simply have no way of knowing if he really was a "flamer" or not) and his aversion to physical relations with women. It appears that Ed2 was more or less willing to stick his willy in anything he could get to hold still long enough.

It was very much true that he was an incredibly weak and inept king.

Was that because he liked to sheath a meat sword up his poop scabbard?

Probably not. But pretty damn funny, none the less.

Was Gibson trying to say that he was a bad king but he was funny queer (not funny Haa-haa.)?
No, I don't think so. I think that as a plot device that just dove tailed nicely with the (unfortunately necessary for audiences) romance between William Wallace and Princess Isabella.

For my money, the really interesting one was his son, Edward the Third and his Son, Edward the Black Prince.
Yeah, Braveheart was a load of bullshet.

Alba an Aigh!
Maybe it's a crock of historical sh*t, but it's still a good movie.... The sad thing is how many people believe it to be true history just because it's in a film. Even Gladiator dissapointed, no Roman would ever kneel before an Emperor- they would sooner die than debase themselves before the first citizen- and "sire" is a medieval word, Commodus had a long and well documented reign and did not die in the arena. Maximus was a minor general that won a singular victory in Germany along side his brother then kind of drops out of history at that point. Gladiators seldom were killed, no promoter would want his money making prize fighters hurt- it was for the most part just as fake as modern pro wrestling with all the hoopla and product endorsements that goes along with it. Only criminals and prisoners of war, slaves and other undesirables were killed in the arenas. Surely in the 2000 year history of Rome there has to be something that happened that Hollywood can make a movie out of that would interest an audience without front loading it with a bunch of BS- Masada comes to mind or Tuteborg Wald.

I won't even begin to point out the major historical flaws in "The Patriot". Everything from the English battlefield tactics to the political mechanations of the Americans is as near to fantasy as you can get without having the American officers enter the scene riding unicorns. And that wasnt' even a very good movie at the end of the day.

Real history on the other hand is chock full of action, adventure, intrigue, blood, guts, sex, and luck (good and bad). When are we going to be treated to some of that in the theaters? I would like to see a real story of the 300 at Thermopalae, not that stupid CGI crap. Or even a true story of Tokugawa Nobunaga, the real kick ass Shogun who was not only a super stud with his sword, but also possesed of the most brilliant military mind the human race has ever produced. How about a true pirate history movie about Bartholemew Roberts or Captain Morgan (the same of the rum fame)- those two guys left enough real life buckets of blood behind them to satisfy the most lustful movie buff.

Perhaps I expect too much of Hollywood.
well, the "sire" thing is kinda pointless. Thats' like complaining that they all spoke English.
True though, "Imperator" would have been a bit more fun.

RSS

Latest Activity

Brad Williams replied to Brad Williams's discussion Self-Defense Without Guns
"I think you guys are totally right in what you're saying here.  I know I have a very slim chance of getting into a situation like this.  I don't go to nightclubs anymore, and I don't hang out in jiudians (Taiwanese style…"
1 hour ago
N. Vest replied to Tim's discussion Male vanity.
"I thought about throwing my hat into the ring on this one but frankly Titus I've read enough of your post to know I don't have the wind to keep up. So instead I'll cheat and let Brett do…"
1 hour ago
Andrew replied to Andrew's discussion How do you take your coffee? I prefer it black with a slice of butter in it.
"A good commitment to make, much respect."
3 hours ago
Andrew replied to Andrew's discussion How do you take your coffee? I prefer it black with a slice of butter in it.
"Interesting! And classy might I add."
3 hours ago
N. Vest replied to James Sullivan's discussion When can a boy learn to fight back?
"My sons have all know how to throw a punch since they were toddlers, not sure this was the smartest idea I've ever had but there it is. Now that my oldest is 7 I'm work on the WHEN to throw a punch. To me the main thing is learning that…"
3 hours ago
Native Son replied to Regular Joe's discussion Rockefellers (Founders of Standard Oil) Are Getting Out of Oil & Gas in the group The Great Debate
"That's exactly why it will never happen.  It makes sense, uses existing technology, but unfortunately has a "green, touchy-feely" air about it. combined with the front-end short term costs, that instantaneously converts each and…"
4 hours ago
Bobby Schorr joined Tookie's group
Thumbnail

Christian Men

Regardless of the specifics, we can all agree on one thing. Jesus Christ was the perfect Man who died and rose again for us such that we could have fellowship with Him
5 hours ago
Bobby Schorr joined James Murphy's group
Thumbnail

Wilderness & Urban Survivalists

Manly survival methods for urban & wilderness situationsSee More
5 hours ago

© 2014   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service