Art of Manliness

Did Robert the Bruce betray William Wallace?

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

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by John Schaefer on May 9, 2010 at 8:14pm

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

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Devon Moore on May 9, 2010 at 8:23pm

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.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Schaefer on May 9, 2010 at 8:31pm

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.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by George Dorn on May 9, 2010 at 10:09pm

Maybe because scriptwriters are cheaper than historians in Los Angeles?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by OHK on May 9, 2010 at 8:32pm

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.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sean on May 9, 2010 at 9:53pm

While we're at it, The Bruce wasn't a self doubting wussy either. And Wallace was not the father of Edward the Third.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael D. Denny on May 9, 2010 at 11:37pm

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.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael D. Denny on May 10, 2010 at 1:17am

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.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul on May 9, 2010 at 10:06pm

Yeah, Braveheart was a load of bullshet.

Alba an Aigh!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Schaefer on May 9, 2010 at 10:41pm

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.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael D. Denny on May 9, 2010 at 11:44pm

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.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Schaefer on May 10, 2010 at 6:12am

Not really but I understand you have to make allowances for language/ storyline. "Princeps" would have done as it means "first citizen" or if they had just adressed the Emperor as "citizen Commodus" that would have been much more historicaly correct. "Imperator" simply means "one with authority" and was used for a designator of respect. I didn't even mention the totaly inaccurate bum rush attack of the Romans during the first battle scene whereas in the arena later on in the movie they all of a sudden start using real tactics. ...or the steerable front wheels on the carts....or the stirrups on the horses...