Yes we've all heard the jewish thing, ive yet to read anything about him being "anti english" discounting the kneejerk patrol whose monocles fell off during the premier of the patriot. I know his old man is a bit of a loon as well.
History of Scotland
- Thread starter Twirlywoos
- Start date
Yes we've all heard the jewish thing, ive yet to read anything about him being "anti english" discounting the kneejerk patrol whose monocles fell off during the premier of the patriot. I know his old man is a bit of a loon as well.
I think it is more about the Protestants than the English per-se...but he does portray the English as crazed nazi loonies in the films in which they appear. Still I like his movies, and own many of them.
I'd say imperialist genocide and rape on a massive scale would be similar to crazed nazi loonies?
Invaders of nations, particularly in ancient times, aren't the most polite as they try to subjugate for their dominance.
It was early day terrorism inspired it is believed by the Crusades.
England would also have issue with Jews later on in history as well I may add.
Invaders of nations, particularly in ancient times, aren't the most polite as they try to subjugate for their dominance.
It was early day terrorism inspired it is believed by the Crusades.
England would also have issue with Jews later on in history as well I may add.
Last edited:
Well, Mr Wallace and many like him were hardly strangers to what you term "genocide" either, he did his fair share of rape, torture and ethnic cleansing, including burning down schools of children and othjer such recorded atrocities......and an interesting fact is the The British Empire who you say went around subjugating and showing brutality to everyone else included the Scots, in fact they played a rather important and primary role in many of the campaigns that saw the formation of the British Empire.
Last edited:
I was going to say wait for the Nazis to crop up but here we are a few posts above.
The point being in context that the impression the English were totally innocent as portrayed time and time again by the poster;
Angilion said:
Well yes they were, because that's exactly what they done breaking a long period of peacetime with an awful bloody tragedy.
Genocide, targetting and systematically destroying an entire populace because of their nationallity where a whole town practically wiped out. Scots in response when raiding and attacking the north of England possibly raped, it wasn't unknown in that age, but I'm not aware of accounts of Wallace himself sexually assaulting. It wasn't a warfare tactic employed, although the slaughter of innocents probably did happen. I think the only cleansing he was attempting was that of English nobility and Royality. The Scottish raids into Northern England were the only like for like response that would bring England to the negotiating table. It worked, that and France nearly bankrupted England. The Scots did not behave in the way of Berwick, what there was abundance of was fear of Scots in Northern England for the retribution rather than supposed acts of attrocities claimed by English chroniclers since..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/scottishhistory/independence/features_independence_wallace.shtml
There were brutal incidents as the whole of that period can testify to, although for that period all of the attrocities real and claimed pail in comparison to the sack of Berwick and the imprint it left. Wallace is but one man, several notable Scots terrorised the North of England in response to English aggression. It's all people could do to resist the might of England.
Castiel said:
Yes after Scotland was strong armed into political union. In a similar fashion to Edwards arbritration over 400 years earlier. Without the invasion and genocide. Scots did play an important role in British Imperialism, it was inevitable when the armies were joined and Scotland provided a much required source of fighting men for England's other pre-occupations at that time. Then it was onwards and outwards. London Rule.
Last edited:
I don't recall saying that the English were innocent or not guilty of their share of atrocities...however the Scots were not blameless either. The attack on Berwick for example was precipitated by the murder of several English Merchants and the confiscation of their Goods, one of whom was related directly to Edward, a cousin iirc......even the English nobility themselves were shocked by Edward's response.
William Wallace after Stirling Bridge marched across the Borders killing pillaging and raping as he went, he burned monasteries, drowning the monks as some kind of entertainment, he burned children in front of their mothers and then slaughtered them as well, and this hatred of the English and his response to it is not only remarked by English Chroniclers, but Scottish ones as well. He conducted a campaign of terror across the Borders, and like Edward and most of the nobility of the times, they were brutal, violent people living in brutal, violent times.
Anyway I'm not really interested in getting into an endless refutation of revisionist history so knock yourself out. I'm sure Angillion will be along to defend himself later.
William Wallace after Stirling Bridge marched across the Borders killing pillaging and raping as he went, he burned monasteries, drowning the monks as some kind of entertainment, he burned children in front of their mothers and then slaughtered them as well, and this hatred of the English and his response to it is not only remarked by English Chroniclers, but Scottish ones as well. He conducted a campaign of terror across the Borders, and like Edward and most of the nobility of the times, they were brutal, violent people living in brutal, violent times.
Anyway I'm not really interested in getting into an endless refutation of revisionist history so knock yourself out. I'm sure Angillion will be along to defend himself later.
William Wallace, the Black Douglas, Robert the Bruce and many others attacked England. None of them raped anyone. They killed, many times in Scotland against Scots let alone English. This is just not part of accepted history. Some of the English chronclers accused them of many things, but it doesn't marry up with the accounts of the Irish and French. Historians are given a bit of a health warning when looking at English accounts of Scottish events and actions due to propaganda.
Wallace never burned children, and slaughtered women. There are several accounts of them being spared.
They did not encircle and slaughter whole towns, men women and children systematically.
Which is why most English accounts are taken with a pinch of salt. Most historians on the subject such as Devine & Magnusson when quoting English chronicles note the inherent bias and propaganda. It is most evident in battle statistics, and again with the likes of Wallace Douglas and Bruce in comparison to Irish French and other English sources.
There is nothing revisionist in discounting some of the uncorroborated English accusations. Modern history books do not take this unevidenced view.
I think it was Magnusson who wrote about the brutality of Wallace and the systematic slaughter of the civilian population of Lanark as well as the garrison there. Others such as Fisher and Brown show that much of the myth and so called 'fact' about Wallace was based on15th Century and later Victorian Romanticism and that like his contemporaries he was a brutal and ruthless warrior who was not wholly innocent of the charges against him. There is propaganda and bias on both sides..to the English of the time he was a ruthless outlaw, to the Scots he was a national hero....there is no objectivity in either position. As for evidence, there is so little actual evidence or knowledge of Wallace as a person or his deeds that opinion and extrapolation from the various Chronicles is all there is, bias and all. The English demonised him, and the Scottish revered him...neither is going to accurate.
It isn't really worth discussing with you Biohazard, because there is no way we could have an objective conversation as you have your views and they won't change, but I doubt most people are naive enough to think that the Scottish Warlords and Leaders didn't commit atrocities in keeping with the rest of medieval Europe..which included the slaughter, rape and pillage of civilians as well as killing each others soldiers.
It isn't really worth discussing with you Biohazard, because there is no way we could have an objective conversation as you have your views and they won't change, but I doubt most people are naive enough to think that the Scottish Warlords and Leaders didn't commit atrocities in keeping with the rest of medieval Europe..which included the slaughter, rape and pillage of civilians as well as killing each others soldiers.
Last edited:
Wallace is a pre-occupation with the English and some members here, in reality he was but a cog in a much larger picture and lasted a few years at best, start to finish. The Bruce and Douglas lasted nearly 30.
There is of course propaganda from both sides, except that writers like Blind Harry themself were writing about events generations afterwards with stories and tales handed down by word of mouth. The bias seen here was more towards romanticism and exaggeration of his prowess and features.
Brutal, obviously, warriors tended to be. The atrocities committed were not comparible, least of which because the Scottish didn't have the capability even had they wanted too.
You are just out of touch, and have been consistently anti-Scottish since you registered.
You haven't read M. Magnusson A History of Scotland I guess,
On the third page of the chapter entitled William Wallace, page 128, he states;
Magnus Magnusson said:
Although I add that there were French and Irish sources throughout this period as well. On balancing out those too, violently against vehemently would indicate that English sources are going to be less reliable than Scottish on average. That's exactly what Magnusson does.
What there is no mention of in the rest of the chapter, to page 159, is rape or genocide by either Wallace or Andrew De Moray.
Most of Wallace's time was on the move or resting or fighting battles or skirmishes almost continually before he was effectively broken and on the run for almost as long. There are numerous mentions of attacking English soldiers, garrisons after his defeat at Falkirk.
Wallace just wasn't in England long enough to have raped piligaged and slaughtered as is claimed by the English, that's why Magnusson's writings do not reflect this.
John Prebble's William Wallace doesn't mention rape or genocide either, which is a required read for Edinburgh University courses on the matter with their history department. What is taught in higher education here from school to the premier universities, and written by arguably the most educated people in Scotland and Britain today on the subject matter, does not match the genocide and raping that is portrayed and long accused.
I guess they are just biased too.
I did say it was possible and likely that some Scots raped, I agree with your regards to that behaviour in that age, but there are no accounts of this being done by Wallace or other generals leaders or officers. Not to the scale of the mass execution of possibly over 20,000 civilian inhabitants on the murderous accusations either.
Wallace's civilian casuallities are a fraction of this, no where even near the minimum 8,000 accepted for Berwick.
My understanding is based on the writings and teachers of people far better educated on the matter than yourself, Castiel.
Last edited:
You are so monumentally biased that you view anything other than mindless blaming of the English as anti-Scottish propaganda and beatification of the English.
You are projecting your own views - you portray the Scots as totally innocent, so you assume that anyone who doesn't share your bias is biased in the same way, just with the nationalities reversed.
In the comment of mine you quoted, I stated only that a scene in a fictional film being falsely passed off as history was not history.
Your reply is entirely baseless. Pointing out the lack of truth in a provably false piece of bigotry-provoking propaganda that you like is not the same as saying that the English were totally innocent.
Nobody is saying that all English people throughout the centuries were completely innocent.
Nobody else has as much nationalist bias as you do. I say again: you're projecting your own way of thinking onto others and you are wrong to do so.
Can you point to bias, specifically and with counter evidence?
How have I pointed to Scots being totally innocent? I've admitted they murderded, probably did rape, certainly stole and created much terror by their presence.....
There is no bias in these books.
What I am saying, is in comparison to even the first act of English aggression it is all pretty insignificant.
I am a nationalist politically, but I wouldn't be a very good historian if i couldn't look at things impartially. I've read and been taught by experts in this field, they are no more biased than I am.
You have in the past blame the Scots for the inital act of aggression in the first War of Independence, and at all other times tried to portray them as anti-English inherrent on other topics such as the Leith execution for Piracy and countless other points in Scottish history. It seemed to be a common theme that's all.
See, this is exactly why I don't want to discuss this with you....rubbish like this. Anything remotely like disagreement or anything that might counter your particular pro-Scottish position is automatically called anti-Scottish and the personal nonsense begins. I'm not out of touch, you are simply relying on a singular perspective...try reading the authors I pointed to as well.
As I mentioned several myself I would again reiterate why it is pointless discussing such things with you. The fact you mention Blind Harry,yet ignore the two authors I mentioned who dealt specifically with such mythologies and folklore just demonstrates this further.
Anyway, I'm not interested in discussing this with you, it will be pointless and you will resort to name calling sooner rather than later. Good night dude, argue with Angillion instead.
Last edited:
Castiel when you first arrived you claimed everything from Scotland isn't a country to that Devolution is not a right and should be revoked in any event, to that the people of Scotland don't have the right to self determination without the grace of others. You have moved on some of that, not always too willingly, but you have always tried your best to deminish or dull the Scottish identity in certain respects. The ones that do not fit with your views of Britishness I guess.
I will do in course, I have no doubt war brings terrible things, but rape and genocide are not generally accepted by scholars in Scotland in any event.
How does mentioning Blind Harry prove anything? I say there is of course propaganda on both sides, highlight Blind Harry as a Scottish example.... and you accuse me of bias for that? I was highlighting his bias for heavens sake, and his recalling and exaggeration of the stories is well known in this topic of debate. It's Blind Harry's version of events that were certainly almost xenophobic in their potrayal of the English, not quite as un-PC as it is now, and that's actually almost reprint and redraft what led to the Braveheart script through the centuries. There are facts that are counter corroborated and just as many that can be proven false.
The sack of Berwick wasn't though. That's the thing, and there are no similar acts of invasion genocide and subjugation from the Scots. "Guerrilla warfare" was the response, to quote Magnusson.
I don't think you're proving anything here Castiel.
A disingenuous and misinterpreted position on your part, and as was clearly explained at the time, I was referencing the Sovereignty position of Scotland rather than the nation itself, just not worded very well, I was new to the forum and entered into the debate assuming some degree of latitude and room to clarify (which I clearly did when challenged), obviously naively so, as for devolution, I see it as divisive in its current form, and advocate a one people, one nation with each of our cultural identities being nurtured and protected within a single unified nation, hardly the way you portray it at all.......Clearly I was obviously mistaken to assume such objectivity, particularly that it is bought up and misinterpreted regularly even two years later and I notice in some threads I am not even participating in, in some vain attempt to discredit or prove some unrelated point......You have your opinion, it is not consistent with either my intent or position however and another reason why it is pointless discussing anything remotely connected with Scotland with you. They just degenerate into this kind of *** for tat nonsence that frankly I find tedious.
No-one said there was an attack on the scale of Berwick, only that Wallace was not as the oft repeated folklore or authors such as A.F Murison would have him, and he was guilty of his own (and by association his mens) brutality, which included slaughter of villages, the burning of women and children inside buildings, the murder of monks and destruction of monasteries and other related barbarities. This is consistant with what one might expect during such a campaign during that era.
If you think that Wallace (and his army) did not rape and pillage (given he had little in the way of a treasury) then you are very naive.
Personally I don't really care whether he was a murderous outlaw or a shining beacon of Scottish moral integrity, I like the movie and don't care whether it is historically accurate or not, and Mr Wallace has no bearing on my life or position in a political sense so it doesn't really matter which side you fall on and why I can't be bothered to trawl through a vast array of references and opinions to belabour the point that there is little evidence of anything regarding Wallace and therefore it is largely a matter of opinion, not fact.
From the Education Scotland website:
Now go bother someone else.
Last edited:
You might enjoy part of this:
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?p=23329497#post23329497
Not really bothered about Wallace to be honest, a minor noble, traitor and murderer who ended up hung drawn and quartered with his genitals cut off and burnt in front of him whilst he was still alive. Robert the Bruce, John Balliol and others such as Andrew Moray are far more interesting and deserving of recognition.
As for the Mel Gibson film, well I think this summary (from medievalscotland.org before Bio claims English bias) sums it up...
So, in the (first) two and a half minutes (of which a full 50 seconds is nothing but movie title graphics and a further 45 seconds is nothing but aerial scenery), the film manages to cram in the following errors:
In summary: Every bit and every aspect of these introductory scenes are, to put it bluntly, wrong. And the rest of the film follows the same pattern.
As for the Mel Gibson film, well I think this summary (from medievalscotland.org before Bio claims English bias) sums it up...
So, in the (first) two and a half minutes (of which a full 50 seconds is nothing but movie title graphics and a further 45 seconds is nothing but aerial scenery), the film manages to cram in the following errors:
- The opening scenery is from the West Highlands, an area not at the center of, or even particularly involved in, Wallace's risings against Edward. (The rest of Scotland does not look anything like the West Highlands, nor did it circa 1300. The appearance of West Highlands are as disctintive compared to the rest of Scotland as the appearance of the Grand Canyon is compared to the rest of America, so this is like using aerial shots of the Grand Canyon in Arizona as the "scene setting" opening shots of a movie about the American War of Independence.)
- As the content of the film will eventually make clear, the narrator/film doesn't actually tell us of William Wallace. Instead, it tells of us some fantasy character in a fantasy world who coincidentally share's Wallace's name.
- It is the historians from Scotland, far more than from England, who will recognize the errors of the narrator/film.
- History is written by the literate, be they victors or vanquished, whether they have hanged heroes or followed them. In the case of Scotland, plenty of it has been written by Scots, including medieval Scots who opposed English overlordship and modern Scots opposed to union with England.
- In 1280, the King of Scotland (Alexander III) was not only not dead, but both of his two sons were also alive and well. The younger son, David, didn't die until 1281, the eldest son, Alexander, didn't die until 1284, and King Alexander himself didn't die until two years after that. (Alexander also had at least one living daughter in 1280, Margaret, who didn't die until 1283.)
- Even when Kind Alexander III did die in 1286, with no surviving sons, he left a granddaughter, Margaret, who was acknowledged as his heir by the Scottish nobles and even the King of England, who negotiated with Scotland to marry her to his son and heir. Rather than fighting each other over the crown, the Scots appointed guardians who ruled the realm in her name for four years, until she died in 1290 while on her way to Scotland.
- But even at this point, the nobles did not fall into civil war, and Edward I of England did not claim the throne of Scotland for himself. Instead, they held a court case to determine who was the rightful heir. While Edward did claim overlordship of Scotland, did preside over the court case, and undoubtedly influenced the conclusion, the end result was to pick (in 1292) John Balliol as King of Scotland by what we and contemporary and subsequent medieval Scots would consider quite normal rules of primogeniture of males of like degree. (In other words, they picked the right guy according to the rules.)
- King John ruled until 1296, when he was forced to abdicate (after going to war with England due to opposition to such things as Edward's "cruel" insistence on hearing appeals of Scottish court cases in England and due to the Scottish nobles not wanting to be made to fight for England in foreign wars). Then, and only then, did Edward I claim to rule Scotland directly himself instead of installing a new Scottish king.
- So, in fact, there had been no actual armed conflict between Scotland and England in this period until King John Balliol's short lived "rebellion" in 1296 and it was not until this year that Edward, after a fashion, claimed the Scottish crown for himself. Note that is 16 years later than the film's false "1280", and, significantly, just the year before the real Wallace's uprising in 1297. [Keep this in mind for all later scenes showing or referring to the supposed long-endured "oppression" of Scotland by England -- that's a good chunk of the movie false in all aspects right there.]
- Edward I was a Christian. He was in no sense a "pagan" -- there had not been any true pagans in Britain since the end of the Viking era centuries earlier. (He wasn't even a "paganus" in the much earlier Classical Latin sense of "peasant" or "yokel".)
- In the 13th century (and the 14th, 15th, and most of the 16th), no Scots, whether Gaels or not, wore belted plaids (let alone kilts of any kind). Further, when the Scottish Gaels did start wearing their belts outside their plaids (mantles), they did not wear them in the rather bizarre style depicted in the film. In other words, not only did the film get the clothing wrong, but they got the wrong clothing itself wrong! (This is like a film about Colonial America showing the colonial men wearing 20th century business suits, but with the jackets worn back-to-front instead of the right way around.)
- Many, perhaps even most, of the nobles of Scotland, especially those involved in the wars with England, were not Gaels, but rather were culturally similar to English nobles. These Scottish nobles, and also many lesser land holders, would have dressed more or less like their English counterparts, many of whom were their relatives, and spoken a Scottish dialect of English and/or Anglo-Norman French, again like the English nobles. Such were the families of Wallace, Bruce, Balliol, Murray, Stewart, Douglas, Comyn, and many others.
- To the best of my knowledge, at no time did Edward invite the nobles of Scotland "to talks of truce -- no weapons, one page only." Certainly not in 1280, when Alexander III had his nobles well in hand, nor in 1286, nor 1290, nor 1292, nor 1296. Especially he would not have called them to such talks in Glen Nevis or anywhere that looked remotely like Glen Nevis, far from Edward's strongholds and power. (Again, this is like depicting discussions between the Colonial Americans and British as taking place in the Grand Canyon.)
- Although the name of William Wallace's father was not really known (at the time the movie was made), what was known was that he was no mere "farmer". He was a knight who held lands.
- William Wallace also had at least two brothers, Malcolm and John. Malcolm was the eldest and although it is not clear when their father died, by 1296 Malcolm was a knight himself holding lands in Elderslie. So that's a minimum of three sons, not two, at least in 1296. How many sons Wallace's father had in 1280 is anybody's guess! [Note for future reference that at least one of William's brothers, Sir John Wallace, outlived him, and his brother Sir Malcolm may have as well.]
- The valley where Wallace's home is shown to be is also in the West Highlands, not the area (Elderslie and the parish of Paisley) nor even at all like the area from which Wallace actually hailed (or at least where his brother held lands and he very likely hailed). It was filmed in Glen Nevis, near Fort William. Glen Nevis is a valley with a base altitude of less than 600 feet above sea level that runs between very steep mountains that range between 3600 to 4400 feet tall; Elderslie, near Glasgow, is in very gently rolling country side where the tallest hill is only some 749 feet high (and takes its time rising to that height). (Again, this is like depicting George Washington's childhood home as having been in the Grand Canyon.)
- The sons of knights did not dress in rags. Further, even poor Scots would have known how to sew (or at least had a family member who knew how to sew) -- poor people, even less than rich, could not afford to let their clothing unravel and disintegrate because they left edges unhemmed.
- There is no reason at all to think that late 13th century Scottish men had "mullet" haircuts from the 1980's. There is no reason at all to think they braided their hair. There is no reason at all to think they tied bits of fur or feathers in their hair. Further, there is no reason at all to think they hadn't ever encountered a comb... [In general, the hairstyles shown for the Scots throughout the film seem to be distinctly late 20th century fantasy in inspiration, influenced by the film "Last of the Mohicans" and the television series "Xena: Warrior Princess" more than by history.]
In summary: Every bit and every aspect of these introductory scenes are, to put it bluntly, wrong. And the rest of the film follows the same pattern.