The Battle of Bannockburn, 1314

Originally posted by gcle2003     And I don't mind being insulted. It's usually a sign that someone has run out of arguments.

Oh yeah, Bannockburn was that battle at the end of Braveheart where that Bruce guy charged at the English at the end... When he was outnumbere ten to one and all that. Oh yeah, that scene in the film...

(Sarcasm overload)

I don't think that Mel tried to portray the Battle as a stupid charge but rather as a honorable act akin to the way that Lord Tennyson portrayed the Charge of the Lightbrigade. What he attempts to do in that scene is show the desire of the Scots for "FREEEEEDOM!" I think he makes this attempt pretty clear when you listen to the words spoken by "Robert the Bruce" as they charge and just after. With that said I thought he did a horrible job historically with that movie. The whole kilt thing was comical to those with knowledge of the anachronism but to most esp. in Hollywood there is nothing more Scotish then a kilt (unfortunately).

What I see some people forgetting is that the army of the English was not just made up of Englishmen. There were Welsh bowmen and other people. Just like we commonly refer to William I's army as Norman but in fact there were Normans, Frisians, Flemish, Britons (from Britanny) in William's retinue. To call the English British is not right but at the same time it's not wrong. The same can be said about referring to modern day France as a Medieval Kingdom. This just is not the case in actuality the dukes and counts of that region after the death of Charlemagne were more like princes of their own kingdoms than subjects of the Isle de France. A good introduction to this notion is Jean Dunbabin's France in the Making.

I'm not arguing that all I said was it's not right but it's not wrong. Are the English and Welsh not British? Although the Scots are also British they were up against an army made up of the other 2 Kingdoms of Britain - granted both were united under one King through conquest. Again I'm not saying that it's right to call the English army at Bannockburn British but it is certainly not entirely wrong. To use your example let's say the Danes and Norwegians were in a battle with the Swedes and the Swedes were defeated although all involved are Scandanavians one could say that a greater Scandanavian army defeated the Swedes. This statement would not be wrong since in fact it was neither the Danes nor the Norwegians but an army of greater Scandanavia who defeated the Swedes. The same can be said about the battle of bannockburn.

Originally posted by King John I'm not arguing that all I said was it's not right but it's not wrong. Are the English and Welsh not British? Although the Scots are also British they were up against an army made up of the other 2 Kingdoms of Britain - granted both were united under one King through conquest. Again I'm not saying that it's right to call the English army at Bannockburn British but it is certainly not entirely wrong. To use your example let's say the Danes and Norwegians were in a battle with the Swedes and the Swedes were defeated although all involved are Scandanavians one could say that a greater Scandanavian army defeated the Swedes. This statement would not be wrong since in fact it was neither the Danes nor the Norwegians but an army of greater Scandanavia who defeated the Swedes. The same can be said about the battle of bannockburn.

Yes, I see your point, but the army fighting against the Scots was fighting for the English crown, so it is justified to call it an English army, because it was fighting for England, though its actual ehtnic composition was different. I would say that British definitely not a favorable term to use because it is discriminatory against the Scottish nationality, and it leads to confusion due to the use of the modern day term of British (it makes it seem that the Scots are not British, yet the English are).


Edited by Emperor Barbarossa - 15-Jan-2007 at 10:29