BRUCE of AIRTH and STENHOUSE Lineage
-PJ
Posted on 09/16/2014 2:10:48 AM PDT by Berlin_Freeper
I thought some artistic license was used (Wallace having relations with the princess the most glaring item); I looked at it as a “historical fiction”.
IIRC, the saying “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again” comes from Bruce’s experience on the lam where he is alone in a cellar of sorts watching a spider try to reach something.
I wouldn’t take anything from Robert the Bruce, and don’t assume his role in the movie is an accurate portrayal. I couldn’t imagine the lot of peasants in either country, and imagine the socialism they’ve embraced over time was designed to protect the nobility from the wrath of a lower class with nothing to live for.
I watched two history channel shows, one on Wallace, one on Bruce, after this thread. Bruce and the nobles indeed left the field at Falkirk, convinced that riding in to Wallace’s aid was suicide. Wallace, on the other hand, was no Mel Gibson. He sacked English cities, his men raped, pillaged, he killed monks. I understand his anger, but it’s not like he was pure.
I believe he was no angel, though with hindsight we now know the clergy at the time weren’t either.
For all of its Catholicism, Ireland’s woes at the hands of the English can be directly traced to a Pope (Adrian IV) giving the English crown (Henry II) the authority to rule Ireland in 1171.
How’s that for a kick in the pants?
Where do I start?.
1—It IS a ridiculous film, great fun, but gets just four main bits right.
2—Gallipoli?. You mean the battle where more British and French died than Aussies and Kiwis?. Don’t forget the Kiwis, the Aussies have. They have tried to wipe everyone else out of the battle. As for the film, great film, but again historically biased. It has the Brits sitting drinking tea at Suvla Bay, when in fact the British were getting slaughtered.
3—The Patriot was equally dreadful historically (and not a patch filmically on Braveheart).
4—You DO realise how stretched the British were in WW2?. How we were fighting literally for our lives and country?.
BTW, the British warned Australia in 1937(!) that the couldn’t defend Australia solely, and told the Aussies to start doing more for themselves ie build planes and ships. The Aussies did nothing. They just ignored the UK warning, which makes the complaints of the last 70 yrs so hollow and hypocritical.
The ANZAC countries had a lot less people to lose; their losses hurt more (as Canada’s did on the Western Front).
“The Patriot” was loosely based on real historical events in the southern theater of our “War of Kicking Britain’s Ass”.
Britain was stretched defending an empire; they could have easily defended the island itself.
Australia probably thought at least they’d have their troops available for their defense; their complaint is that they weren’t even afforded that much.
I have always enjoyed reading your perspective on historical events, Mr. Scotsman, thank you for your posts.
Ed
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.