Whether Robert Bruce Deserves to Be Remember As a Great Scottish King - Report Example

Whether Robert Bruce Deserves to Be Remember As a Great Scottish King Introduction The legend of Robert Bruce is one marked by controversy and great debate; some scholars feel that poems, songs and old stories have influenced it while others claim that popular tales are in fact a true depiction of the leader. Famous authors such as John Barbour have been responsible for the creation of a hero’s image for Robert Bruce, yet historical occurrences may not always support this assertion. It is important to look through other historical reports of the Scottish king’s reign in order validate claims about his heroic status; further, one must examine the motives behind many of the famous poets that created the legend. Robert Bruce’s greatness In historical documents about Robert Bruce, one can find evidence of greatness through the courage that he displayed in battle, with the most prominent one being the Battle at Bannockburn. Some authors have called it the “greatest battle for independence that Scotland has ever known” (Konstam, 2006). The above author justifies this statement by claiming that prior to the battle, King Bruce was a leader only in name and not territory. However, after King Edward the Second’s defeat, Robert’s control over much of Scotland would increase substantially; the opposite would have been true if he had lost. England approached the battle with too much confidence by assuming that Scotland would be on the defensive; however, to their dismay the opposite was true. First, King Robert had cleverly selected an area that would cover him quite effectively; the thickly forested Bannock Burn (Konstam, 2006). Secondly, he had drilled his men thoroughly and even turned away some men who had not prepared effectively for battle; this group would later consist of a reserve for Scotland. Robert even had a backup plan in case English became too strong; his group would later retreat into the woods and come back to fight later. When the battle started, an English knights man spotted King Bruce at the front of the Army and charged at him, but Robert responded by cutting his head in two with a knife. This act of courage inspired the rest of the team that would later march with zeal towards their enemies (Duncan, 1997). They countered an attack from the back by forming a thick row of spears; this offensive attack strategy continued on the second day of the Battle. The Scots emerged from an area called New Park and attacked the English army; they forced them to push back towards the waters where they had little space to manoeuvre. Eventually, they could not defend themselves and some entered the water as they tried to avoid the Scottish archers; so many of them drowned in the nearby stream. Others fled while the remaining ones had now been demoralised, so King Edward too escaped from battle and headed to England (St. Andrew’s Society, n.d). After Bannockburn, Bruce went on to demand the formal recognition of Scotland as an independent territory; this battle paved the way for other “raids in England, the war between Edward and Bruce’s sons as well as the declaration of Arbroath” (Konstam, 2006, p.7). The above leader such as Stirling Castle, Bothwell Castle, Dunbar, Jedburgh and a large part of South Scotland, enjoyed several rewards. These castles were not particularly useful to Bruce but the surrounding territories were instrumental in validating his hold over the kingdom. Therefore, the victory at Bannockburn was what catapulted King Robert from being a mere a leader on paper to becoming one who lay claim over vast territories in Scotland. Military experts and analysts relish the superiority with which Bruce handled the Bannockburn affair; many of them called it ingenious. At the time when the battle took place, generalship had not acquired the prestigious position that it now enjoys, so when a person displays astuteness and brilliance, as had been the case with Bruce, this conduct surely deserves recognition. Barrow (2005, p.407) explains that the secret behind Bruce’s success in that battle was his unmatched understanding of strategy; the leader knew when a certain issue had to take priority and it had to be ignored. This perfect timing of interventions ensured his defeat over William Wallace; such qualities do not come easily and must be acknowledged as signs of greatness. Furthermore, Bruce seems to possess a kingly character even though he ascended to the throne through a controversial revolutionary coup. This leader had the benefit of a real and aristocratic lineage in the form of his grandfather, so it was not a surprise that he took to the throne so easily. King Robert appears to be committed to peace in some of his exchanges with other rulers such as Edward II. In a letter written in 1315 to the above ruler, Bruce states that the people of Scotland and England are similar in culture and language, so it makes sense for them to stay in peace (Barrow, 2005). One might argue that his behaviour in the above letter contradicts what he did before his ascension to the throne and later, but it easy to explain why he behaved in a confrontational manner. Bruce appears to be firmly committed to securing Scotland’s independence, and this seems to be his primary objective throughout his reign. When he realises that the above state of affairs can be achieved, he is all too willing to live in peace with England. However, if another monarchy wants to threaten the independence of the kingdom, then Bruce is willing to employ any means to secure its sovereignty. This commitment to such a firm principle is definitely admirable and paved the way for other leaders who fought strongly to continue Bruce’s legacy of patriotism. Regardless of Bruce’s accomplishments, history also shows that he was not a flawless leader either as he seemed rash and too ambitious at times. The first incident that shows his lack of wisdom was when he switched alliances twice in a period of two years before his colleagues. Some scholars have used the latter incident as a justification for charges of treachery against the leader; however, a deeper analysis of his reactions may simply illustrate that he was overly ambitious and frustrated that his fellow citizens could not get what they wanted within the period of time that he had anticipated. Brown (2004) explains that Robert Bruce had taken oaths of allegiance to King Edward I as well as King John, yet he chose to violate them. A male heir known as John Balliol held on to the Scottish crown even though he faced a lot of opposition from Bruce himself. Additionally, despite King Edward II’s defeat in war, he still refused to let go of his claim to the Scottish kingdom, so Bruce had no choice but to continue with war in order to gain recognition from other leaders as the rightful leader of Scotland. The ascension to power of the above leader was in no doubt questionable; in fact, many Englishmen called him King Hobbe, which is loosely translated as King of the fools. However, his strategic raids upon key strongholds and subsequent victories won him plenty of admiration from these same detractors. He had earned a reputation as a diplomatic leader who knew where he needed to go in order to make the most of his position as a rising king. The weaknesses displayed by this individual can thus be easily explained by the political environment at the time; the claim to Scotland’s throne was a complex one that could only be settled through war. Armstrong (2003) sheds more light on this situation when he describes the circumstances under which William Wallace lost clout among the English. He traces the history between the Scots and the English from 1286 when one of Scotland’s longest serving leaders, Alexander III died. The latter leader left Scotland with no male heir thus forcing the country to consider the possibility of working with England under its own terms. King Edward the First entered into a treaty with the Scots in 1290, in which they will operate as an independent kingdom if a descendant of Alexander and Edward’s son wedded. However, the mother of this bequeathed daughter died thus leaving the crown of Scotland open to contestation from 14 claimants, two of whom were Robert Bruce (Grandfather to King Robert 1) and John Balliol. Noble Scottish men requested Edward I to preside over the decision, and he decided on selecting Balliol who would pay homage to England. In fact, much of Scotland was still under English rule, so Balliol did little to protect his kingdom’s interests in their wake. King Edward openly disregarded Balliol’s title and even sent for his response to court summons in England; this was considered as the ultimate sign of disrespect over Scotland’s independence. Eventually, the relationship between King Edward I and King Balliol would be severely strained that Scotland would take France’s side during a looming invasion by England. The above tensions led to a war between the two kingdoms, and in the battle of Dunbar, the Scots surrendered to the English in a humiliating defeat. Furthermore, at Stirling, some of Scotland’s men surrendered and handed over the keys to the English whose leader marched northwards to meet King Balliol. The latter surrendered the remaining part of his kingdom to King Edward who embarrassingly tore off Scotland’s court of arms form his coat (Armstrong, 2003). These circumstances thus demonstrate the confusing state in which the Scottish throne had initially been after the death of Alexander. It also shows that England had violated its agreement with the Scots concerning their independence; Edward I turned King Balliol into nothing more than an overlord during his reign. He had humiliated the nation of Scotland by taking away their status symbols, such as the court of arms, and imprisoning their leader. It would thus make sense for King Robert to try and vindicate his nation by at least reclaiming most of the territories that were lost in other regimes. In this regard, what would be treated as disloyalty to King Edward can thus be interpreted as patriotism for the people of Scotland. Overall, most of the accomplishments and encounters attributed to King Robert Bruce were essentially written by poets and authors such as John Barbour and Sir Walter Scott. In order to understand whether Bruce was truly great, it is necessary to look at the objectivity of these authors’ writings. Penman (2005) notes that the author and poet John Barbour wrote a highly selective narrative in his famous poem “The Bruce”. Barbour had to think about the political and social circumstances at the time and write a piece that would stabilise Scotland. His people had experienced challenges to the throne, including the reign of John Balliol who had ruled the kingdom between 1292 and 1296. Therefore, he needed to make the Bruces appear to be the rightful heirs of the Scottish throne; this was the reason why no mention was meant of Robert Bruce’s archrival William Wallace. In Barbour’s poem, the narration predominantly hides Bruce’s flaws, yet these are evident when one considers other historical accounts. For instance, the poet does not talk about moments in which Robert Bruce changed allegiances prior to 1306 as this would have rendered him weak. Additionally, he does not focus on some of the grave mistakes that were committed by the ruler, such as when he murdered John Comyn at a holy place. Barbour prefers to describe this murder as a just subjugation of a traitor, yet at the time Bruce had seen Comyn as nothing more than a rival (Ebin, 1972). Most of the poem is dedicated towards a description of the battle at Bannockburn; this excess focus shows that Barbour wanted to downplay Bruce’s shortcomings and exaggerate his accomplishments. Since many historians later came to rely on Barbour’s account, it is necessary to take caution before labelling Bruce a hero; the primary narration responsible for this attitude must be studied. Barrow (2005) still acknowledges the challenges that historians face when they choose to ignore John Barbour in their understanding of Robert Bruce’s reign. The author states that without Barbour’s account, one would be left with some disjointed descriptions of his leadership but would not have a full portrait of the man’s life. Therefore, even though the poet had his own selfish intentions when writing “The Bruce”, one must not totally dismiss his contribution. He was a careful recorder who noted names, incidences and dates; these can all be validated by other contributions from literature. Conclusion History illustrates that King Robert Bruce was indeed one of the great Scottish kings irrespective of the myth and tales surroundings his name. First, he was committed to protecting the sovereignty and independence of Scotland and fought bravely in numerous battles to do so. Furthermore, he was an excellent military strategist who knew exactly what to prioritise on in battle and outside; this innovativeness was rare in his days. The King appears to be a natural leader because he inspired his people to fight for what was rightfully theirs. Attempts to delegitimize him by claiming that he took the throne though a revolutionary coup do not hold water because the Scottish throne had been violated by the English and was highly open to contestation. Others who assert that he had a propensity for war also ignore the fact that peaceful means had bore no fruit as seen through King Edward’s disregard for Scotland’s supremacy. Even close secondary narrations like John Barbour’s accounts hold water because their dates and events can be found among English narrations; it is merely the point of emphasis that changes in these encounters. References Armstrong, P., 2003. Stirling Bridge and Falkirk 1297-98. Oxford: Osprey Publishing. Barrow, G., 2005. Robert Bruce and the community of the realm of Scotland. Edinburgh: EUP. Brown, M., 2004. The wars of Scotland, 1214-1371. Edinburgh: EUP. Duncan, A., 1997. John Barbour, The Bruce. Einburgh: EUP. Ebin, L, 1972. John Barbour’s Bruce: Poetry, history and propaganda. Studies in Scottish Literature, 9(4), pp. 218-242. Konstam, A., 2006. Bannockburn: Scotland’s greatest battle for independence. Edinburgh: Aurum Press Penman, M., 2005. King Robert the Bruce. La Reputation, 10, pp. 25-40. St. Andrew’s Society. n.d. King Robert the Bruce. [online] Available at: http://www.manilastandrews.org/PDFs/King_Robert_the_Bruce.pdf Accessed 13 June 2014 Read More