Instigator / Pro
7
1922
rating
117
debates
97.44%
won
Topic
#1841
THBT: BRAVEHEART DEFAMES ROBERT the BRUCE
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
0
After 1 vote and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
oromagi
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
3
1557
rating
35
debates
52.86%
won
Description
THBT: BRAVEHEART DEFAMES ROBERT the BRUCE
DEFINITIONS:
BRAVEHEART is "a 1995 American epic war film directed and co-produced by Mel Gibson, who portrays William Wallace, a late-13th-century Scottish warrior. The film grossed $75.6 million in the US and grossed $210.4 million worldwide. At the 68th Academy Awards, the film was nominated for ten Academy Awards and won five: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Cinematography, Best Makeup, and Best Sound Effects Editing."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braveheart
DEFAMES is [verb] "to harm or diminish the reputation of; to disparage."
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/defame
ROBERT the BRUCE was "King of Scotland from 1306 until his death in 1329. Robert was one of the most famous warriors of his generation, and eventually led Scotland during the First War of Scottish Independence against England. He fought successfully during his reign to regain Scotland's place as an independent country and is today revered in Scotland as a national hero."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_the_Bruce
BURDEN of PROOF is shared
PRO must prove defamation of Bruce
CON must prove no defamation of Bruce
- RULES --
1. Forfeit=auto loss
2. Sources may be merely linked in debate as long as citations are listed in comments
3. No new args in R3
4. For all relevant terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the rational context of this debate
Round 1
Pro
#1
Thanks, Nevets.
- Braveheart
is
generally acknowledged as a profoundly ahistorical film.
- If you
google "least historically accurate movies," Braveheart gets a nod in 9 of the first 10 hits.
- For example, Isabella of France, who is remembered now as the "She-Wolf
of France" for her rulership as Queen Regent of England for 3 years is depicted a smitten turncoat surrendering to William Wallace's
sexual magnetism, making the future Edward III a bastard by treason and
not incidentally, delegitimizing the rule of all successive English
monarchs. In truth, Wallace was executed for treason when Isabella was
still a child in France
ARG 1.1
P1: Falsely accusing a soldier of fighting for the enemy is defamatoryP2: Bruce was not present at the Battle of Falkirk, but the movie "Braveheart" falsely depicts Bruce as present and fighting on England's side against ScotlandC1: Therefore, the movie "Braveheart" defames Bruce
- P1
- The relevant charge is TREASON:
- "In law, treason is criminal disloyalty, typically to the state. It is a crime that covers some of the more extreme acts against one's nation or sovereign. This usually includes things such as participating in a war against one's native country, attempting to overthrow its government, spying on its military, its diplomats, or its secret services for a hostile and foreign power, or attempting to kill its head of state. A person who commits treason is known in law as a traitor"
- Let's note the politics of 13th Century feudalism created a complex web of contradicting oaths and opposing loyalties. Bruce had large landholdings and relatives on both sides of the First War of Scottish Independence. Further, Bruce considered John Balliol an usurper to the Scottish throne, Toom Tabard, and regretted Scottish loses on behalf of an illegitimate king. Although there were multiple occasions when Bruce was sworn to both Balliol and Edward I, this was true of most Scottish lords at some point as alliances shifted regularly within the internecine conflict.
- P2
- Remarkably, we have the English roll of arms, the list of noblemen present at the Battle of Falkirk, the oldest English roll of arms extant
- The Bruce's devices are not recorded on the Falkirk Roll of Arms
- Six weeks after Falkirk, Edward I's army invaded the Bruce's holdings at Annandale and captured Lochmaben Castle, Robert's birthplace.
- Such an attack would not be necessary or warranted if Bruce was then fighting for Edward.
- In the same month, Wallace resigned his position as Guardian of Scotland in Balliol's stead in favor of dual guardianship by John Comyn and Bruce.
- If Bruce had fought with the English at Falkirk, why would the Scots name Bruce to command their army just a few weeks later? Particularly, why would such a sensational reversal not be recorded when many less sensational events were duly registered?
- History records that Wallace led a small, ill-equipped force against the English at Falkirk. Wallace (along with most of the Scottish lords present) managed to escape on horseback the slaughter of the Scottish bowmen and infantry on foot.
- "Wallace escaped, though his military reputation suffered badly.....Details of Wallace's activities after this are vague, but there is some evidence that he left on a mission to the court of King Philip IV of France"
- The script to BRAVEHEART has it this way:
- Still Wallace fights back, meeting the English charge. The Scots hold their own. An English knight tries to ride over William; he knocks the lance aside, and tough the horse slams into him, William also unseats the rider. The rider rolls to his feet. William struggles up to meet him -- and comes face to face with Robert the Bruce!
- The shock and recognition stun Wallace; in that moment, looking at Robert the Bruce’s guilt-ridden face, he understands everything: the betrayal, the hopelessness of Scotland. As he stands there frozen, a bolt punches into the muscle of his neck, and Wallace doesn’t react to it.
- Bruce is horrified at the sight of Wallace this way. He batters at Wallace’s sword, as if its use would give him absolution.
- ROBERT: "Fight me! Fight me!"
- But Wallace can only stagger back. Bruce’s voice grows ragged as he screams.
- ROBERT: "FIGHT ME!"
- All around, the battle has decayed; the Scots are being slaughtered.... Suddenly Stephen comes through the melee, on Robert’s horse! He hits Robert from behind, knocking him down, and jumps to the ground to try and lift William onto the horse!
- Robert is left alone, on his knees in the water, the fire and noise of battle now dim to him, as if his senses have died along with his heart.
- C1
- After Falkirk, Wallace fled in defeat, resigned his command, and left the defense of Scotland to Bruce and others.
- We might understand that the truth about Wallace's conduct makes for a less than heroic movie protagonist and so the truth is fudged.
- However, to scapegoat Bruce particularly, the very commander who carried on Wallace's fight for another 16 years until avenging Falkirk at Bannockburn- that is unjust defamation.
ARG 1.2
P1: Falsely accusing a soldier of delivering a comrade to the the enemy is defamatoryP2: Bruce never betrayed William Wallace, but the movie "Braveheart" falsely depicts Bruce as giving up Wallace to Edward I's menC1: Therefore, the movie "Braveheart" defames Bruce
- P1
- The relevant charge is COLLOBORATION:
- "Collaborationism is cooperation with the enemy against one's country of citizenship in wartime"
- P2
- "By 1304 Wallace was back in Scotland, and involved in skirmishes at Happrew and Earnside. Wallace evaded capture by the English until 5 August 1305 when John de Menteith, a Scottish knight loyal to Edward, turned Wallace over to English soldiers at Robroyston near Glasgow."
- That same summer, distrust between Edward and Bruce escalated. When Bruce's chief rival, John Comyn revealed Bruce's secret alliance against Edward with both Comyn and William Lamberton, Bruce was likewise under English warrant for treason.
- Bruce had no motivation to betray Wallace
- C1
- Without any historic justification, BRAVEHEART has Bruce laying a trap for Wallace on behalf of the English:
- CRAIG: "He won’t come."
- ROBERT "He will. I know he will."
- They hear the approach of a single horse. The Bruce looks out to see Wallace arriving.
- ROBERT: Here. And unarmed. My God, he has a brave heart.
- OUTSIDE THE HOUSE
- Wallace dismounts and enters.
- INT. THE HOUSE
- Wallace appears at the doorway into the main room, and stops. Bruce faces him. The eyes of BOTH MEN meet, saying everything. Wallace steps into the room. He sees something flicker onto Bruce’s face -- shame -- just as henchmen in the rafters drop a weighted net and it envelopes Wallace. English soldiers spring from the closets, run down the stairs, and tumble over him, ripping at his clothes, searching as if broadswords might spring from his boots.
- They bind Wallace hand and foot. He stares at Robert the Bruce, who averts his eyes. The soldiers hurry Wallace out the back, where others are bringing up horses. Robert grabs the English Captain of the soldiers.
- ROBERT "He is not to be harmed. I have your king’s absolute promise that he will be imprisoned only!"
- The Captain looks at Bruce the way the High Priest must have looked at Judas, and leaves.
ARG 1.3
P1: Pretending to have been awarded military honors due a fellow soldier is defamatoryP2: The nickname "Braveheart" was honored to Bruce posthumously, the movie "Braveheart" falsely suggests the nickname honors WallaceC1: Therefore, the movie "Braveheart" defames Bruce
- P1
- Imagine if some director made a movie about King John of England but named the movie "Lionheart."
- Imagine a movie about Confederate General George Pickett called "Stonewall"
- P2
- "Braveheart" is Bruce's nickname, albeit earned posthumously:
- "Robert the Bruce always regretted that he never went on crusade. On his
deathbed in 1329, Robert asked one of his knights to take his heart on crusade so that it could fight
against God’s enemies. The knight, Sir James Douglas, carried Robert’s
heart in a silver case, riding to Spain where war raged against the
Moors..... Before riding into battle, he reportedly threw the urn
containing Robert the Bruce’s heart at the Muslims, shouting “Lead on brave heart, I’ll follow thee!” The heart was returned to
Scotland after the battle, where it was later interred at Melrose Abbey."
- The Braveheart of Scottish tradition refers to the embalmed heart of the Bruce, a Scottish relic and a national emblem.
Although Robert I was probably never called "Braveheart" during his
lifetime, the epithet is his, in honor of his cherished memory.
- C1
- What we have in BRAVEHEART is the 2nd most important figure of the First Scottish War of Independence (Wallace) recast as the 1st most important figure.
- In spite of Scotland's intent, Wallace is now falsely clothed in some of Bruce's stolen reputation
- When you google "Robert the Bruce" the first hit is Bruce's Wikipedia entry.
- But if you google "Robert the Braveheart" the first 50 or so hits tell the lie that Bruce was a traitor and English collaborator
- That is stolen fame- defamation by definition
CONCLUSION
- PRO asserts that when artists make biography their subject, the artist has an obligation to tell truth where the truth is knowable or an obligation to acknowledge when the art diverges from what we know to be true. Historic truth is hard enough to discern without making up fake news.
- Let's agree that we owe a duty to our ancestors to tell their stories with an eye towards accuracy.
If we assert, as most people do today, that a biography is an asset and one's own personal property worthy of preservation, then don't we owe every biography some truth, even centuries after death? If someone
should tell your story some 700 years from now, wouldn't
you hope you received credit where credit was due? That your depiction
was, if not flattering, at least true?
I look forward to CON's R1 reply
Con
#2
Hi oromagi and good luck
oromagi wrote....THBT: BRAVEHEART DEFAMES ROBERT the BRUCE
I will be arguing that Robert the Bruce was not defamed by the film braveheart. Quite the opposite in fact. He was exonerated.
.oromagi wrote....P1: Falsely accusing a soldier of fighting for the enemy is defamatory
In actual fact, Robert the Bruce did actually switch sides. More than once. "Maybe" not at Falkirk, but certainly at earlier stages of "the Scottish wars of independence".
Robert the Bruce did change sides between the Scots loyalists and the English more than once in the earlier stages of the Wars of Scottish Independence
And this was what was written in history books long before braveheart came along and "exonerated" him.
.oromagi wrote....Bruce was not present at the Battle of Falkirk, but the movie "Braveheart" falsely depicts Bruce as present and fighting on England's side against Scotland
In fact it is "uncertain" whether he fought for England at Falkirk or not, does not change the fact he already had a reputation as a "traitor".
It was at one point in Scottish history considered quite contemporary that "he did", due to 14th century Scottish historian John of Fordun writing it in to Scottish history books.
The reason for this is uncertain, though Fordun records Robert fighting for Edward, at Falkirk, under the command of Antony Bek, Bishop of Durham, Annandale and Carrick. This participation is contested as no Bruce appears on the Falkirk roll of nobles present in the English army,
So perhaps John of Fordun was simply assuming Robert the Bruce did, due to his previous history, and the fact, well, if he was not fighting for the English that day, then where was he? And it would seem if Robert the Bruce wanted to take out a defamation lawsuit, he would need to take it out on John of Fordun.
oromagi P1
I see nothing in P1 that requires countering. The fact there may have been others that also switched sides, and not only Bruce, has little to do with the individual case of "Robert the Bruce".
oromagi P2
oromagi wrote.... Six weeks after Falkirk, Edward I's army invaded the Bruce's holdings at Annandale and captured Lochmaben Castle, Robert's birthplace.
Trivial point perhaps. However can you please quote from your source where it says Lochmaben Castle was Robert's birthplace. Because as far as i can see it does not say that. And his birthplace is considered unknown. Though i do acknowledge Lochmaben Castle did belong the De Brus family.
Although Robert the Bruce's date of birth is known, his place of birth is less certain, although it is most likely to have been Turnberry Castle in Ayrshire, the head of his mother's earldom
I have nothing else to add to the rest of P2. There is nothing there that changes the fact that Robert the Bruce was already written in to Scottish history books as a traitor.
C3 oromagi
I have nothing to add to C3 either. William Wallace being brave, or cowardly, is nothing to do with what i am arguing against.
oromagi ARG 1.3The nickname "Braveheart" was honored to Bruce posthumously, the movie "Braveheart" falsely suggests the nickname honors Wallace
I am quite certain that the nickname Braveheart got given to him more to do with his becoming a Scottish national hero after defeating the English at Bannockburn, rather than his earlier years of siding with the English during the early wars of independence. That and the fact his heart was supposed to travel to Jerusalem.
I doubt had Robert the Bruce failed to defeat the English at bannockburn that day, he would today be a Scottish national hero, nor anything else other than a traitor. If mentioned at-all.
oromagi P1
I have nothing to argue about King John nor general pickett
oromagi p2
I'v already covered this, about Bruce heart.
oromagi C1What we have in BRAVEHEART is the 2nd most important figure of the First Scottish War of Independence (Wallace) recast as the 1st most important figure.
There is actually no truth to this whatsoever.
William Wallace was a Scottish national hero long before the film braveheart.
He was becoming a Scottish national hero whilst Robert the Bruce was still siding with the English.
William Wallace was a Scottish knight who became one of the main leaders during the First War of Scottish Independence
William Wallace became a true Scottish national hero when he defeated the English at Stirling bridge
Along with Andrew Moray, Wallace defeated an English army at the Battle of Stirling Bridge in September 1297. He was appointed Guardian of Scotland
William Wallace was a national hero from the time of his death
Since his death, Wallace has obtained an iconic status far beyond his homeland. He is the protagonist of Blind Harry's 15th-century epic poem The Wallace and the subject of literary works by Sir Walter Scott
I have nothing else to add to C1, as it has already been covered, or is conjecture.
oromagi wrote....PRO asserts that when artists make biography their subject, the artist has an obligation to tell truth where the truth is knowable or an obligation to acknowledge when the art diverges from what we know to be true. Historic truth is hard enough to discern without making up fake news.
You are correct. Braveheart had a lot of inaccuracy. But if anyone has been defamed, it was not Bruce. It was Longshanks son. "Apparently" he was homosexual and required Wallace to do to his wife what he was not man enough to do.
Now a few things we should understand. Mel Gibson is of Irish elite Irish ancestry, and this is extremely important to understand. I will explain as i go.
Gibson's paternal grandmother was opera contralto Eva Mylott , who was born in Australia, to Irish parents, while his paternal grandfather, John Hutton Gibson, was a millionaire tobacco businessman from the American South. One of Gibson's younger brothers, Donal, is also an actor. Gibson stated his first name is derived from St Mel's Cathedral, the fifth-century Irish saint, and founder of Gibson's mother's local native diocese, Ardagh
Now Robert the Bruce was actually also of elite Irish ancestry
Bruce himself, on his mother's side of Carrick, was descended from Gaelic royalty in Scotland as well as Ireland. Bruce's Irish ancestors included Aoife of Leinster
In fact, his brother, Edward Bruce, was king of Ireland.
Edward Bruce was a younger brother of Robert the Bruce, King of Scots. He supported his brother in the 1306-1314 struggle for the Scottish crown, then pursued his own claims in Ireland., Proclaimed High King of Ireland in 1315 and crowned in 1316, he was eventually defeated and killed by Anglo-Irish forces of the Lordship of Ireland at the Battle of Faughart in County Louth.
So when Edward got defeated, Robert the Bruce took his place as King of Ireland
Bruce was even crowned as High King of Ireland in 1316.
This happened at a time when the Bruces of Scotland and Ireland joined forces against the English.
Now you will realise that Irish people, during certain parts of history, have had their troubles with Westminster, and don't like the English very much, sometimes.
And braveheart was not the only anti-english film Mel Gibson was involved with. He was also involved with "the patriot" which was also a film where the English/British become the bad guys, and get their asses kicked in what of USA's proudest moments
The Patriot is a 2000 American epic historical fiction war film directed by Roland Emmerich, written by Robert Rodat, and starring Mel Gibson, Chris Cooper, Heath Ledger, and Jason Isaacs. The film mainly takes place in rural Berkeley County, South Carolina, and depicts the story of an American Colonist, nominally loyal to the British Crown, who is swept into the American Revolutionary War
And what Mel Gibson done with braveheart. Is he turned a figure regarded in scottish history as a half hero/half deserter, in to a figure of legend. Purely by the way Robert the Bruce was depicted of leading Scotland to victory at Bannockburn against the English.
That was Robert the Bruce forgiven. Forever.
Robert the Bruce gave Scots in the cinemas something to cheer about, at a time when Gary Mcallister made them cry.
The fiilm braveheart made Robert the Bruce more famous, and a bigger national hero, than he had ever been before the film.
And before the film he was regarded as a turn-coat.
He fought successfully during his reign to regain Scotland's place as an independent country and is today revered in Scotland as a national hero.
I think Robert the Bruce could only claim defamation, if he is claiming that the slander prevented him from becoming a deity.
Because the film certainly did not reduce his fame. It cemented his place as a loyal forgiven scotsman. A man that redeemed himself and pledged loyalty to scotland. Made him infamous. Something Gary Mcallister will never do, nor be.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Thanks, Nevets.
THBT: BRAVEHEART DEFAMES ROBERT the BRUCE
ARG 1.1
P1: Falsely accusing a soldier of fighting for the enemy is defamatoryP2: Bruce was not present at the Battle of Falkirk, but the movie "Braveheart" falsely depicts Bruce as present and fighting on England's side against ScotlandC1: Therefore, the movie "Braveheart" defames Bruce
- Robert the Bruce did actually switch sides."Maybe" not at Falkirk, but certainly at earlier stages
- SEE ARG1.1 P1
- More properly, there were multiple sides and Robert the Bruce was himself one of those sides. Bruce believed from birth that he was the rightful heir of King David I and the true King of Scotland as well as Lord of Scottish Annandale, Earl of Scottish Carrick, and Governor of English Carlisle.
- Feudal loyalties were more personal and familial than national. In the eyes of the Church (officially, that is) Scotland's kings and nobles owed fealty to Edward, as David I owed fealty to Henry I in the second generation of the Norman conquest.
- Wikipedia suggests that "Bruce did change sides between the Scots loyalists and the English" but that betrays a prejudice towards the kingship claims of Balliols and Comyns as "loyal."
- Bruce viewed Balliols and Comyns as usurpers and enemies and disloyal Scots. Certainly the Comyns were more closely related to Edward I than the Bruces and before and after the conflict possessed the stronger ties to England. From Bruce's perspective in 1296, Berwick and Dunbar were conflicts between the English King and his Scottish puppets from which loyal Scots could stand apart.
- Likewise, for Balliols and Comyns, Bruces and Stewarts (and their vassals including Wallace) were the principal enemy and Robert I was their candidate for the Stone of Scone. Bruce eventually murdered John Comyn for betraying his plans to revolt to Edward
- Edward expertly played the factions against each other. Edward originally preferred Balliol's claims to the throne over Bruce. When Balliol made alliances with France, Edward made overtures to Bruce. When Bruce declared himself King, Edward returned to supporting the Balliols
- If Balliol and Comyn's faction represented "Scots loyalists" as Wikipedia suggests, then Edward I was more loyal to Scotland than William Wallace, James Stewart and most of the heroes of Scottish Independence
- In fact it is "uncertain" whether he fought for England at Falkirk or not
- SEE ARG 1.1 P2
- OBJECTION:
- CON has ignored all 3 or PRO's arguments showing that Bruce can't have fought with the English at Falkirk
- If Bruce fought with the English at Falkirk, why isn't Bruce's device listed on the English Roll of Arms?
- If Bruce fought with the English at Falkirk, why would the English army destroy Bruce's possession just weeks later?
- If Bruce fought with the English at Falkirk, why would the Scottish make Bruce Guardian of Scotland just weeks later?
- Any of these disprove Bruce at Falkirk. CON must answer these questions or acknowledge defamation
- due to 14th century Scottish historian John of Fordun writing it in to Scottish history books.
- Let's recall that John of Fordun was trying to reconstruct Scottish history after the English destruction of the Scottish archives, with none of the modern historian's access to English records.
- Worse, Fordun's likely source for Falkirk was the Provost of St Mary of the Rock, William Comyn, "writing for Balliol's patriotic cause and perhaps as an apologist for the Scot's military collapse of 1303-04, to blacken [Bruce's] name deliberately"
- We should not trust an enemy's account for Bruce's conduct.
- Fordun had no access, for example, to documents such as Hugh of Cressingham's July 23, 1297 report to Edward I "if you had the Earl of
Carrick, the Steward of Scotland and his brother...you would think your
business done" which shows that 2 weeks after Irvine, 6 weeks before the Battle of Stirling Bridge and a full year before Falkirk, the English considered Bruce, Earl of Carrick, the leader of the rebellion.
- if Robert the Bruce wanted to take out a defamation lawsuit, he would need to take it out on John of Fordun
- Fordun is forgiven because he was writing in an age bereft of good scholarship on the matter, as are the 14th and 15th century writers who leaned on Fordun. But the record is corrected by Scottish historians like Rev. Joseph Stevenson, Alexander Murison, and George Chalmers in the 19th Century. PRO is aware of no 20th Century biography that puts Bruce at Falkirk. Let's toss out the 600 year old scholars with an axe to grind and fault Randall Wallace and Mel Gibson exclusively for consciously reviving false accusations long after absolution.
- does not change the fact he already had a reputation as a "traitor"
- Excluding accounts inspired by Bruce's enemies, what source claims Bruce ever had a reputation as a traitor?
- PRO repeats this claim multiple times without citation.
- please quote from your source where it says Lochmaben Castle was Robert's birthplace
- "[Bruce] was born 12th July 1274, whether at Turnberry Castle or Lochmaben Castle has not been definitely ascertained"
- The argument is that the English would not have destroyed Bruce's castles after Falkirk if Bruce had supported the English at Falkirk.
ARG 1.2
P1: Falsely accusing a soldier of delivering a comrade to the the enemy is defamatoryP2: Bruce never betrayed William Wallace, but the movie "Braveheart" falsely depicts Bruce as giving up Wallace to Edward I's menC1: Therefore, the movie "Braveheart" defames Bruce
- CON drops this argument entirely
- PRO's argument that Bruce never betrayed William Wallace in spite of the movie's knowingly false depcition stands unchallenged
ARG 1.3
P1: Pretending to have been awarded military honors due a fellow soldier is defamatoryP2: The nickname "Braveheart" was honored to Bruce posthumously, the movie "Braveheart" falsely suggests the nickname honors WallaceC1: Therefore, the movie "Braveheart" defames Bruce
- I am quite certain that the nickname Braveheart got given to him more to do with his becoming a Scottish national hero after defeating the English at Bannockburn
- PRO and CON agree that although the nickname references a posthumous event, the intent was to honor Robert's victory at Bannockburn and his successful reign as king of an independent Scotland. If Robert had not been a victorious king, he would not likely have earned that epithet
- CON's argument forwards PRO's primary complaint: the Braveheart nickname is Bruce's honor, not Wallace's. No biography of Wallace should steal Bruce's nickname
- I doubt had Robert the Bruce failed to defeat the English at bannockburn that day nor anything else other than a traitor. If mentioned at-all
- A ridiculous claim. Bruce gave battle to the English more or less continuously for 32 years from 1296 until Edward III recognized a free and independent Scotland in 1328
- Robert I was the first King to break from the English throne, 8 years before his most famous victory at Bannockburn.
- During those 8 years, Bruce commanded a Washingtonian guerilla army that slowly retook almost every occupied castle in Scotland and raided Northern England.
- "The eight years of exhausting but deliberate refusal to meet the English
on even ground have caused many to consider Bruce one of the great
guerrilla leaders of any age"
- [William Wallace] was becoming a Scottish national hero whilst Robert the Bruce was still siding with the English
- CON has failed to show that Bruce ever sided with the English
- As Matt Ewart summarizes:
- "Wallace was born into the gentry of Scotland; his father lived until he
was 18, his mother until his 24th year; he killed the sheriff of Lanark when he was 27, apparently after the murder of his wife; he led a group
of commoners against the English in a very successful battle at
Stirling in 1297, temporarily receiving appointment as guardian;
Wallace's reputation as a military leader was ruined in the same year
of 1297, leading to his resignation as guardian; he spent several years
of exile in France before being captured by the English at Glasgow, this resulting in his trial for treason and his cruel execution"
- Wallace was famous for co-commanding one successful ambush and running away from one terrible defeat. If there was any national outpouring of grief at his death 8 years after Falkirk, PRO can find little evidence for it. Scottish gentry seem to have thought of Wallace as a lesser noble elevated above his rank to disastrous effect. The common man remembered Wallace as the knight who forced farmers to fight at Stirling and hanged those who refused.
- Wallace's reputation was spectacularly revived by a poem written 200 years after Wallace's death, The Wallace, in which Wallace is given a comic book hero makeover:
- The factual elements of the poem are, however, combined with many
fictional elements. Wallace is depicted as an ideal hero in the
tradition of chivalric romance. He is described as being unfailingly courageous, patriotic, devout and chivalrous.
- For several hundred years following its publication, The Wallace was the 2nd most popular book in Scotland after the Bible
- Blind Harry's poem are is what made Wallace famous
- William Wallace became a true Scottish national hero when he defeated the English at Stirling bridge
- Documentation, please
- William Wallace was a national hero from the time of his death
- Documentation, please
- But if anyone has been defamed, it was not Bruce. It was Longshanks son.
- Non sequitur
- Mel Gibson/ Bruce [are] of Irish elite Irish ancestry...
- Non sequitur
- Gibson....turned a figure regarded in scottish history as a half hero/half deserter, in to a figure of legend....before the film he was regarded as a turn-coat.
- CON has failed to show one piece of evidence supporting the notion that Scotland consider Robert the Bruce a turncoat prior to 1995. CON must establish this as true (which it ain't) in order to win this point as argued
- Gary Mcallister....
- Non sequitur
Con
#4
SEE ARG1.1 P1.
I do not really have much contention with anything oromagi wrote regards to ARG1.1 P1.
Oromagis claims are "not" that Robert Bruce was defamed by Balliol, Comwyn, nor anyone else of that time, but by the film Braveheart.
Robert the Bruce might have been the biggest thing since slice bread, in Scotland, back in 1296, however it was not the film Braveheart which defamed him.
Robert the Bruce was already regarded as a Prodigal son as early as 1384. It was John of Fordun that wrote it in to Scottish chronicles that Robert the Bruce fought for the English.
Now i offered this in my previous round, and my opponent offered no contention. So obviously he does agree that John of Fordun did indeed write this in to his Scottish chronicles. And no later than 1384.
Fordun records Robert fighting for Edward, at Falkirk, under the command of Antony Bek, Bishop of Durham, Annandale and Carrick.
My opponent has one more round left to refute this. If he cannot refute it, he simply cannot win without there being a stewards enquiry.
SEE ARG 1.1 P2
- OBJECTION:....
oromagi wrote....CON has ignored all 3 or PRO's arguments showing that Bruce can't have fought with the English at Falkirk
No, i have not. I have already acknowledged in my previous round, John of Fordun may have been incorrect. It really is not important though. The fact is, nobody can truelly know the truth of something that happened in 1296. But we do know that if Robert the Bruce was defamed, he was defamed long before the film Braveheart emerged.
oromagi wrote.....If Bruce fought with the English at Falkirk, why isn't Bruce's device listed on the English Roll of Arms?
Because like i said in round 1. He "maybe" did not fight for the English at Falkirk. Perhaps "John of Fordun" defamed him, for political reasons.
oromagi wrote....If Bruce fought with the English at Falkirk, why would the English army destroy Bruce's possession just weeks later?
Because like i said in round 1. He "maybe" did not fight for the English at Falkirk. Perhaps "John of Fordun" defamed him, for political reasons
If Bruce fought with the English at Falkirk, why would the Scottish make Bruce Guardian of Scotland just weeks later?
Because like i said in round 1. He "maybe" did not fight for the English at Falkirk. Perhaps "John of Fordun" defamed him, for political reasons
oromagi wrote....Any of these disprove Bruce at Falkirk. CON must answer these questions or acknowledge defamation
See Bruce's Brother for answer in argument below. You will come across it in due course.
oromagi wrote....Let's recall that John of Fordun was trying to reconstruct Scottish history after the English destruction of the Scottish archives, with none of the modern historian's access to English records.
So my opponent does agree that John of Fordun wrote this in to Scottish history.
Is this debate about Braveheart defamed Robert the Bruce, or about who knows best the life and times of Robert the Bruce. If it is the latter, let me know and i will start debating about that.
oromagi wrote...Worse, Fordun's likely source for Falkirk was the Provost of St Mary of the Rock, William Comyn, "writing for Balliol's patriotic cause and perhaps as an apologist for the Scot's military collapse of 1303-04, to blacken [Bruce's] name deliberately"
So my opponent now acknowledges that the belief goes back to 1304. In which case this acknowledges that whilst Bruce was "still alive" there was those that believed him to be a traitor
Robert the Bruce was still alive then. Did not die until 1329
Robert I (11 July 1274 – 7 June 1329),
Fordun had no access, for example, to documents such as Hugh of Cressingham's July 23, 1297 report to Edward
I see no relevance. The fact is. There was people back then, that were already of the opinion he was a traitor. You have proved this yourself.
oromagi wrote...But the record is corrected by Scottish historians like Rev. Joseph Stevenson, Alexander Murison, and George Chalmers in the 19th Century.
Rev Joseph Stevenson was not a Scottish historian. He was an English Catholic Priest, and "activist". But again, we are arguing about something that is unimportant. Robert the Bruce not fighting at Falkirk, is neither here nor there. It is what people thought at the time that matters. And an English "activist" Catholic Priest is not quite going to cut it, in convincing Scots that Robert the Bruce was a Prodigal son.
Same with Murison and Chalmers. Irrelevant. They offer nothing that changes anything.
oromagi wrote...Excluding accounts inspired by Bruce's enemies, what source claims Bruce ever had a reputation as a traitor?
You might aswell have said, appart from the accounts i wish to be excluded, what source claims Bruce ever had a reputation as a traitor? wow..Can you provide a list of names of people please that did not believe the rumours and allegations?
oromagi wrote...PRO repeats this claim multiple times without citation
I don't require Citations. You even acknowledge yourself that the rumour and allegations goes back to a time when he was still alive. It was espoused by his enemies. I do not know how this strengthens your case.
The argument is that the English would not have destroyed Bruce's castles after Falkirk if Bruce had supported the English at Falkirk.
oromagi wrote...The argument is that the English would not have destroyed Bruce's castles after Falkirk if Bruce had supported the English at Falkirk.
So you do agree you offered no quote for a claim. And you claimed that something was written in a link you provided, and it actually wasn't.
And as trivial as that may seem, can you please point out where i have made any errors or falsifications or misrepresentations in my argument? So that is definitely at the very least 1-0 to me, in terms of accuracy and accurate reporting.
oromagi wrote.....CON drops this argument entirely
This is a dishonest statement. As dishonest as the statement i addressed above.
I have made no such arguments in return to the many aspects of my round 1 rebuttals which you are overlooking. 2-0
oromagi wrote,,,PRO's argument that Bruce never betrayed William Wallace in spite of the movie's knowingly false depcition stands unchallenged
By your own admission, it was challenged by "the Provost of St Mary of the Rock, William Comyn". And i assume as it was written into Scottish chronicles by John of Fordun, it was accepted as contemporary by many.
oromagi wrote....CON's argument forwards PRO's primary complaint: the Braveheart nickname is Bruce's honor, not Wallace's. No biography of Wallace should steal Bruce's nickname
"Bruce's Brother"......Now seen as my opponent has all those questions for me. And i answered every single one of them. I have a question and a challenge for him.
In round 1 my opponent implied that William Wallace had stolen Robert the Bruce nickname, Braveheart.
Now Braveheart was the name of the film. And yes, William Wallace was the fearsome sword wielder depicted on the cover.
However i challenge my opponent to provide a quote from the film Braveheart, where anyone referred to William Wallace as "Braveheart".?!!!
I challenge my opponent to provide citation from where Mel Gibson ever said Braveheart was the nickname of William Wallace.
Quite simply, it is a well accepted fallacy, that the film Braveheart, awarded William Wallace with the nickname "Braveheart". And my opponent is yet another member of society that fell for this fallacy. Like he has fell for many fallacies, it seems. Including the fallacy that Mel Gibson, a man with devout Irish ancestry, would wish to defame their heroes that fought against the English, during the Scottish and Irish wars of independence.
A bit like the mad Irishman that came along and saved William Wallace, declaring that he is "Irish", and "Ireland is my Ireland". "Your Ireland?", aye "My Ireland".
I doubt my opponent just like most people, recognised, whilst watching the film, that this Irishman, was Edward Bruce "King of Ireland", Robert Bruce brother.
So right here, the film is subliminally painting out the Bruces as heroes, for those with greater historical understanding. Even William Wallace, who the Irishman saves in the woods from assassination, is unaware, that this man, is Bruces brother.
This would be suggesting, that Robert the Bruce was "infiltrating" the English, from within.
My opponent then goes on to highlight all the glorious things Robert the Bruce done for Scotland. Is my opponent unaware that the film Braveheart depicts Robert the Bruce going through all those struggles and coming out a Scottish national hero? I see no relevance in his history lesson. It is clear we know this already. And we also know things my opponent does not.
oromagi wrote.....Documentation, please...
Using your own words. He led a group of commoners against the English in a very successful battle at Stirling in 1297, temporarily receiving appointment as guardian; hardly makes Wallace an unknown figure.
And i find it treully bewilidering my opponent makes this statement
oromagi wrote...For several hundred years following its publication, The Wallace was the 2nd most popular book in Scotland after the Bible
Then he asks me for citation regarding this
oromagi wrote...William Wallace was a national hero from the time of his death
The Wallace was thought to be written in 1488
That predates braveheart.
Robert Bruce was "romanticised" by Braveheart.
Round 3
Pro
#5
ARG 1.1
P1: Falsely accusing a soldier of fighting for the enemy is defamatoryP2: Bruce was not present at the Battle of Falkirk, but the movie "Braveheart" falsely depicts Bruce as present and fighting on England's side against ScotlandC1: Therefore, the movie "Braveheart" defames Bruce
- I do not really have much contention with anything oromagi wrote regards to ARG1.1 P1
- CON concedes that Bruce never switched sides, rather Bruce was leader of one side
- it was not the film Braveheart which defamed him....It was John of Fordun....Now i offered this in my previous round, and my opponent offered no contention. So obviously he does agree that John of Fordun did indeed write this....My opponent has one more round left to refute this.
- OBJECTION: PRO refuted Fordun's claim directly in R2
- SEE ARG 1.1 P2 R2
- CON has overlooked or ignored all of PRO's arguments re:Fordun
- Fordun's likeliest source for Falkirk was Bruce's enemy
- Fordun's account suffered from a paucity of reliable accounts
- Fordun had no access to English archives as did later historians, who all deny Bruce@Falkirk
- Fordun is forgiven where BRAVEHEART is not because Fordun had no scholarship to lean on. Randall Wallace had access to centuries of good scholarship but consciously proffered the false version in order to burnish Gibson's character at the better man's expense
- I have already acknowledged in my previous round, John of Fordun may have been incorrect. It really is not important though
- If Bruce was not fighting for England at Falkirk, as BRAVEHEART asserts without qualification, then defamation is proved and PRO has won this debate
- CON's only evidence for Bruce@Falkirk is Fordun who CON now concedes is incorrect and unimportant
- The fact is, nobody can truelly know the truth of something that happened in 1296
- Battle of Falkirk was in 1298
- There are two primary sources for Falkirk, The Falkirk Roll of Arms and The Chronicle of Walter of Guisborough
- Fordun had no awareness of these sources but all modern historian depend on these first
- Guisborough and the Roll of Arms agree that Bruce was not at Falkirk
- But we do know that if Robert the Bruce was defamed, he was defamed long before the film Braveheart emerged
- Defamation doesn't work that way- it's not a "once and done" kind of violation. Bruce can be defamed in the past and defamed again by the same set of falsehoods or new lies in the present.
- OBJECTION:
- CON continues to ignore all 3 or PRO's arguments showing that Bruce can't have fought with the English at Falkirk. In the second round, CON feigns response by offering the same non-reply to all 3 questions:
- Why isn't Bruce's device listed on the English Roll of Arms?
- Why would the English army destroy Bruce's possession just weeks later?
- Why would the Scottish make Bruce Guardian of Scotland just weeks later?
- To which CON replies thricely: Perhaps Fordun defamed Bruce
- OBJECTION: Non responsive. CON's inability to explain confirms Bruce was not at Falkirk
- So my opponent now acknowledges that the belief goes back to 1304.
- Nope. Read it again. William Comyn was making excuses to Fordun for his Comyn ancestor's surrender in 1304.
- Rev Joseph Stevenson was not a Scottish historian. He was an English Catholic Priest
- "Scottish historian" as in Scottish history rather than an historian of Scottish extraction
- The relevant point is that these historians had access to primary documents, unlike Fordun
- You might aswell have said, appart from the accounts i wish to be excluded, what source claims Bruce ever had a reputation as a traitor?
- CON has only offered Fordun. Fordun's likely source was William Comyn, whose clan chieftain was killed by Bruce 2 generations before. If we wanted good information on Aaron Burr, we probably wouldn't only rely on the stories told by Alexander's Hamilton's descendants
- I don't require Citations. You even acknowledge yourself that the rumour and allegations goes back to a time when he was still alive
- False, that's CON's misread re:1304 above
- So you do agree you offered no quote for a claim.
- Quote provided in R2
- PRO and CON agree the point is trivial
- We agree Bruce's birthplace is contested and irrelevant
- CON is dodging the question: If Bruce was with Edward and Falkirk, why would Edward sack Bruce's castle at Lochmaben?
- can you please point out where i have made any errors or falsifications or misrepresentations in my argument?
- Bruce switched sides
- Bruce may have been at Falkirk
- Bruce had a reputation as a traitor, half deserter, turncoat
- Wallace was national hero while Bruce sided with England
- Wallace was national hero from time of death
- Edward II required Wallace to do to his wife what he was not man enough to do
ARG 1.2
P1: Falsely accusing a soldier of delivering a comrade to the the enemy is defamatoryP2: Bruce never betrayed William Wallace, but the movie "Braveheart" falsely depicts Bruce as giving up Wallace to Edward I's menC1: Therefore, the movie "Braveheart" defames Bruce
- CON drops this argument entirely
- This is a dishonest statement
- CON still hasn't offered one argument showing that Bruce turned Wallace over to Edward: point is dropped
- i assume as it was written into Scottish chronicles by John of Fordun, it was accepted as contemporary by many.
- False. John de Menteith captured Wallace. Every source including Fordun is quite clear in the matter:
- "The noble William Wallace was, by Sir John Menteith, at
Glasgow, while suspecting no evil, fraudulently betrayed and seized,
delivered to the King of England..."
- No source ever claims Bruce betrayed Wallace
- In fact, there is no reliable evidence that Bruce and Wallace ever even met
- [PRO] implied that William Wallace had stolen Robert the Bruce nickname, Braveheart.
- False. The movie stole the nickname, not Wallace. It's in the title of the debate
- i challenge my opponent to provide a quote from the film Braveheart, where anyone referred to William Wallace as "Braveheart".?!!!
- SEE ARG 1.2 R1
- At the moment before Bruce ambushes Wallace
- The Bruce looks out to see Wallace arriving
- ROBERT "Here. And unarmed. My God, he has a brave heart"
- The movie actually makes the REAL Braveheart admire the phony usurper Braveheart's "brave heart" at the very fake moment when the REAL Brave Heart is falsely shown to cowardly betray the phony Braveheart. The ghost of Bruce has never stopped invisibly punching Gibson in the face since the moment this scene was filmed
- the fallacy that Mel Gibson, a man with devout Irish ancestry, would wish to defame their heroes that fought against the English
- OBJECTION: No true Scotsman (or Irishman) fallacy
- Edward Bruce "King of Ireland", Robert Bruce brother, etc
- OBJECTION: Non sequitur
ARG 1.3
P1: Pretending to have been awarded military honors due a fellow soldier is defamatoryP2: The nickname "Braveheart" was honored to Bruce posthumously, the movie "Braveheart" falsely suggests the nickname honors WallaceC1: Therefore, the movie "Braveheart" defames Bruce
- He led a group of commoners against the English in a very successful battle at Stirling in 1297, temporarily receiving appointment as guardian; hardly makes Wallace an unknown figure
- ...And failed within the year at Falkirk, ran away to France for six years and got caught soon after returning. CON assumes that Wallace was still well thought of for Stirling but history shows that losers fade from fame fairly fast. Does CON have any actual evidence that Wallace was well-remembered at the time of his death? PRO finds none. Did anybody seek to recover Wallace's remains for burial? Did anybody build any tomb or mausoleum or monument after he died? No. I'm certain there must be some statue or stone dedicated to his memory before Blind Harry wrote a comic book super hero poem that used his name and little else 150 years later but PRO can't find any monument that old. He's in the old Scottish history books, for sure, as are many then famous names that are not so famous now. But in point of fact, PRO can't find any monument older than 200 years, when the king of the romance novel, the man who gave us Robin Hood, Walter Scott gave Wallace the same treatment. Then statues and monuments and crosses and plaques pop up everywhere. And now in the wake of the movie, every tourist trap in Scotland has a William Wallace mug to sell you
- By contrast, Bruce had the most epic funeral in Scottish history. Three and an half tons of candles were burned. The great knight Douglas encased Bruce's heart in silver and took it on crusade and lost it and Scotland had to go get his heart back. And then they called him Braveheart and remembered him forever only less so now to the extent that he has to share every monument and ceremony and castle niche and stain-glassed window with Wallace- who, actual history tells us, co-commanded one big ambush but fled his first and only pitched battle
- Robert Bruce was "romanticised" by Braveheart
- ROMANTICIZED [adjective] is "Interpreted in an unrealistic, idealized fashion"
- CON concedes the debate. PRO and CON agree that BRAVEHEART treats Bruce in an unrealistic fashion. That Bruce is fantastically made an ideal coward so craven for power that he would join Edward at Falkirk and later arrest Wallace for execution by Edward. Scotland's great liberator-King is made romantically hesitant and faithless and feckless, who's character arc is what, learning to be inspired by Wallace? Was Washington inspired by Charles Lee? Was Lincoln inspired by McClellan? Why does Scotland's first free king now have to share every tourist trap in Scotland with a contemporary he never bothered to meet?
CONCLUSION
- CON has argued that BRAVEHEART made Bruce more famous but treason and betrayal are infamous traits, not famous traits. BRAVEHEART makes Bruce a traitor to elevate Wallace and diminish Bruce and uses Bruce's own nickname to sell it.
- thx Nevets
- thx VOTERS- pls vote PRO
Con
#6
Summary and final conclusion!
""At the end of this Summary i provide "proof" in my final conclusion, that William Wallace was "even in contemporary history" betrayed by Robert Bruce.""
I would also like to point out that my opponent, asked for no new arguments in round 3, yet his entire round 2 was full of "new arguments",
oromagi wrote...
- "The noble William Wallace was, by Sir John Menteith, at Glasgow, while suspecting no evil, fraudulently betrayed and seized, delivered to the King of England..."
- No source ever claims Bruce betrayed Wallace
- In fact, there is no reliable evidence that Bruce and Wallace ever even met
Therefore i will provide an answer to this, in my "final conclusion".
Now, I would like to begin by pointing "directly" to the "key point".
In round 2 i offered my opponent a scene from Braveheart regarding when "the mad Irishman" saved William Wallace from assassination, and i taught my opponent just how this mad Irishman was in fact, "even unbeknown" to Wiliam Wallace (in the movie) Robert Bruce brother, and this would suggest that "in the movie" Mel Gibson was portraying Robert Bruce, as not a traitor, but an "infiltrator".
My opponents response to this, was "non sequitur"
So let us view the meaning of "non sequitur".
A non sequitur is a conclusion or reply that doesn’t follow logically from the previous statement.
The only thing that was a "non sequitur" was his wrongful use of the word "non sequitur".
My opponent found himself in a position, handed a vision he had not seen before, but once seen, realised it is irrefutable that this is the case. Thus my opponent was unable to challenge it. He was unable to refute it. He was unable to do anything other than fall back on the old word "non sequitur".
But oromagi was unable to challenge the fact that i had shown how in the movie Braveheart Mel Gibson was actually subtly portraying Robert Bruce as an "infiltrator" of the English, whilst his Brother Edward Bruce watched over William Wallace. "He was unable to challenge it". That is a win for me.
Now i can only imagine my opponent was thrashing like a crocodile. Because i set my opponent a challenge. And that challenge was to go away and find support for his beliefs that "William Wallace" was ever referred to as Braveheart, in the film, or anywhere else by Mel Gibson.
The best my opponent could do was "The Bruce looks out to see Wallace arriving, ROBERT "Here. And unarmed. My God, he has a brave heart". But that is not quite what i asked for. This was not referring to William Wallace as "Braveheart". Braveheart was the nickname of Robert Bruce in contemporary history, and no-one during the film, referred to William Wallace as "Braveheart".
Now right from the very beginning, my opponent makes a false claim. "Braveheart is generally acknowledged as a profoundly ahistorical film." Which is "wrong". Braveheart is officially classed as "fiction".
Braveheart is a 1995 American epic war film directed and co-produced by Mel Gibson, who portrays William Wallace, a late-13th-century Scottish warrior. The film is fictionally based
So any defamation lawsuit goes out the window there anyway.
However i am now going to prove beyond doubt, that even in Contemporary history, any lingering hopes of a defamation suit for Robert Bruce get thrown out of court.
Quite simply, John Menteith, the man that betrayed Wallace, went on to receive large land grants by Robert Bruce, and fought alongside him
My opponent was then caught out in an inaccuracy, where he made a statement regards to Robert Bruce birthplace, and provided a link for this claim, and when i notified him that his link does not say what he said it does, he acknowledged this. Though trivialised the importance of his error, as irrelevant.
So if it is orrelevant, why did he bring it up in the first instance? And why did he not provide the quote where it said that?
My opponent also places a great deal of weight on whether Robert Bruce fought at Falkirk or not. He cites the Falkirk rolls as definitve proof he did not.
But it would simply be common sense, if Robert the Bruce was onside with the English at Falkirk, he is hardly going to want his name documented on the Falkirk rolls so that the whole of Scotland become definitively aware of this.
Though i am not saying this is the case. I really hold no value on whether he did or did not.
Now in round 2, i actually had to look at the thread "twice" to see if i was seeing correctly, before going to make an argument.
First, he claimed that it is "Scottish Historians" he is getting his information from. And i showed that in fact, the information is from English Catholic Priest and "activist". He did not challenge this in round 3.
But what i found truelly baffling, was his plea to have the people that did make claims of Bruce being a traitor, excluded. This was quite simply, a "wow" moment. I had to re-read it.
Oromagi "claims" that those claims should be "excluded" because they are from Bruce enemies.
So oromagi is taking sides? He is deciding that the claims of his enemies are not valid because they are his enemies? Or that this is proof that it was not the belief of that time, because it was purely the belief of his enemies? Does not make sense.
Now for me, the biggest question mark over oromagi came when i got to near the end of his post, and i read this
oromagi wrote...For several hundred years following its publication, The Wallace was the 2nd most popular book in Scotland after the Bible
And right after it i read this
oromagi wrote...William Wallace was a national hero from the time of his death
And yes, for those that are reading this before going to read the thread in it's entirety, they will say, and how does that contradict his claim?
But oromagi was asking me to provide "proof" that Wallace was a national hero from the time of his death.
Well let us take a look. And review those words again. "For....several....hundred....years....following....it's....publication...."The Wallace"....was....""""""""the second most popular book in Scotland""""" .............."""""""after the bible""""".
Oromagi failed to show where Robert Bruce ever had a book of this popularity written about him.
Quite simply, Bruce did not.
At no point in Scottish history, is there any proof of a "Cult" following for Robert Bruce.
Not even in any evidence provided by Bruce very own defence attorney, who is trying to remove his Romanticised appeal, has suggested that Bruce ever had a Cult following.
And does my opponent, or anyone, think, that William Wallace becoming a Cult hero, is something that just happened overnight in 1488? I very much doubt it. In order to be considered a competitor for Jesus, he must have had one hell of a reputation.
There is no "proof" for a following like this for Robert Bruce however.
Bruce's reputation has "always" been more prodigal.
Now this brings me to my final conclusion.
Final conclusion
John de Menteith was a Scottish nobleman during the Wars of Scottish Independence. He is known for his capture of Sir William Wallace in 1305 and later joined with King Robert I of Scotland and received large land grants in Knapdale and Kintyre for his service. He is described as "guardian" of the Earldom of Menteith, as his great-nephew Alan II, Earl of Menteith was a minor at the time of the death of Alan I, Earl of Menteith.
The End
Irrelevant mythology.
There is a lesser known mythological story dating back to the Scottish clan system. The story has it, that Hawkeye the Gnu, the Scottish red Indian clan cheiftain sent a group down to Cumbria to try and have the mountain Scafell pike changed back to it's real name of Scafell peak, before becoming bastardized by dialect.
But the group were really anxious. "Whit happens if we get captured and they want tae ken whae sent us tae raid thur libraries"? And Hawkeye replied, "just tell them the truth". They responded "whit? yae want us tae grass yae up likesay"? And the wise old indian cheif looked at them and said "yes".
So off his group of highlanders marched to Cumbria on their mission to correct literature. And sure enough, they got captured.
During interrogation they were asked "who do you work for". The group began having palpitations. Sweat pouring from their faces. Shaking uncontrollably, unable to comprehend just what they were about to do, in telling the interrogators the truth, and each and every individual, all being questioned in seperate rooms, all blurted out at the sametime in a hyperventilated screech. "Hawkeye the Gnu". Their answers were all treated with a silence, then when asked to repeat what they had said, they repeated, with twice as much hyperventilation "Hawkeye the Gnu". Then more silence. Followed by uncontrollable laughter from the interrogators, and in the end, the prisoners were released. Upon their return, "Hawkeye" asked them. "How did your mission go"? They replied, we got captured. "And what did you tell them"? Hawkeye asked. "We telt thum the truth", they replied. "And what did they do", Hawkeye asked. "They hired the expert opinion of university scholar Sir James Harriot who concluded that "Och aye the noo" is a "Scottism" and he wrote this in to their encyclopaedia.
But the moral of this story, is that you can't use real history to prove the accuracy of what others think, if you are not from that culture.
Those from a Scots.Irish culture do not agree that Robert the Bruce fighting at Falkirk makes him a traitor.
It makes him an infiltrator.
Those from a scots/Irish cilture understand back then Scotland was close to civil war.
Those from s Scottish or Irish culture, are well aware William Wallace was a Guerilla warfaring terrorist. Bruce would probably have been his next target
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
1. Falkirk
His not switching sides is well supported by such things as the roll of arms. The counter evidence includes that very roll of arms, undermining itself.
A claim that a certain historian should be blamed instead, doesn’t get off the ground since the movie would still be committing the same crime even if they heard it from someone else.
The invasion of one of his holdings immediately after the battle is weirdly contested in meaning (maybe not his birthplace), but agreed to as one of his holdings (if fighting for England, were they mad he did not fight well enough?)…
2. Gave them Wallace
Pro shows this is unsupported, and con seems to drop it.
Con later picks it up by claiming we don’t really know… Not something that goes anywhere.
3. “Braveheart”
Pro shows that the title belonged to Bruce, and the movie falsely gave it to Wallace.
Con counters that it should really be Edward II who was defamed… this is neither here nor there; a mere Red Herring (yup, you can defame a hundred individuals, and still be guilty of defaming each one of them).
4. Gary Mcallister
I am unsure what this has to do with the debate…
Con goes to some effort to defend that this was not a “non sequitur.”
5. Reputation not diminished
This was a smart bit from con, pointing out that The Bruce became better known. Which to harm someone’s reputation, yes, you are indeed spreading the name around (kind of like that newspaper in Spider-Man, it makes him more famous by defaming him). I can however consider this a benefit for the weighting.
6. fiction genre
This was introduced by con only in the final round after pro could not respond. Final Round Blitzkriegs are pretty much discounted from arguments by any real judge.
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points. Pro basically takes this by a landslide. The closest con gets is that the movie made him more famous, but that doesn’t change that it clearly defamed him.
Sources:
Looks like both sides did really well on supporting their cases with research.
S&G:
While not penalizing it, I highly suggest con learn how to use headings from pro. Pro’s points were much less difficult to follow.
Conduct:
Something to be very careful of in writing is when to quote things “infiltrator” is quoted as a prior claim, but was not present in the debate until after pro could not respond.
Dropping every point that was called “non sequitur” for a whole round before bringing it up after pro could not respond, was a bit of a low blow.
Insults like “i can only imagine my opponent was thrashing like a crocodile” seal this point.
Comparatively, pro was polite even at the end, with “thx Nevets” serving as his second to last line.
And Gary Mcallister is a Scottish professional footballer. He became famous during euro96 when he was in the Scotland team that went to Wembley to face England.. The match was played at a time when "Braveheart" had just hit the screens. The tartan army descended upon Wembley to the tune of "freedom" raved up in to techno. The Scotland team for a pre-match team talk, watched the film "braveheart". The scotland team that day were captained by defender Colin Hendry, nicknamed "braveheart".
Scotland only needed a draw to qualify for the knock out stages. Scotland went 1-0 down.
But then they began to rally. on the 79th minute they got a penalty.
And Gary Mcallister stepped up to take it. He "missed".
Gary Mcallister was never forgiven for this. He soon had to announce his retirement from international football.
It was unforgivable.
He was supposed to score, so that the Scots could continue with their techno raved up version of braveheart for the rest of the tournament.
The film braveheart became synonymous with Scottish culture.
English of course wished to point out the flaws in the historical accuracy.
But scots at the time were not bothered about that.
It was purely a great time.
Magical. I will never forget the 96 trip to wembley. It is etched in my memory forever.
Robert Bruce could try to claim defamation.
But Robert Bruce was never ever a scottish national hero before braveheart. Not amongst anyone else other than catholic normans anyway.
It was the film braveheart, that made him a national hero.
I can assure you.
However Bruce went down in my estimations. He was actually just part of the Norman conquests really. He was self interested. He fought a civil war in Scotland, yet he was not himself scottish. He donated lands to the man that betrayed wallace.
Bruce does not deserve the recognistion he received from scots after braveheart.
You are correct. I have made the error of talking whilst i research. William was actually Robert Bruce Grandfather.
Willam was grandson of William de Breuse.
Apologies.
As i live 5 miles from Robert Bruce place of death, and regularly visit Rosslyn chapel, i took defeat on this quite badly.
As i never looked upon Robert Bruce as a traitor. Nor does any scotsman i know.
Nobody thought he faught at Falkirk.
Were never taught this at school.
However he did have a reputation as being a bit "Norman" English.
Which there is nothing wrong with.
However, like i said. "Congratulations on your victory".
And i meant that.
Thank you.
No explanation needed cuz it just ain't so
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1945/robert-bruces-son-william-de-brus-is-on-the-falkirk-rolls-fighting-for-the-english-which-probably-means-robert-de-brus-robert-bruce-was-on-side-with-the-english
How do you explain Robert Bruce son, William, being on the Falkirk rolls?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/The_Falkirk_Roll_of_Arms_-_Panel_2_-_La_Batayle_le_Eveske_de_Dureme.jpg
Fame is fame, even if its fame for evil.
Fame for evil is properly termed infamy, the opposite of fame. Fame used to imply not only well-known but also well-spoken of. I notice that this definition has changed during the age of internet, which prizes name recognition above a good reputation but in my book, famous for evil, true or false, is the opposite of fame.
Meghan Markle who recently married Prince Harry is a 25th generation direct descendant of Robert the Bruce (in fact, Bruce has many famous descendants because his children married into multiple royal lines). But that fact gets almost no play in America as a direct result of Bruce's ruined reputation in the US, exclusively due to the lies Mel Gibson told about Meghan Markle's Greatx24 Grandfather. Now, if Meghan Markle was a descendant of William Wallace, that fact would likely be well known in America even though the real Wallace was a mostly unsuccessful minor landowner.
Richard the Lionheart vs Bad King John is a classic example. Richard was easily one of the worst kings in history. Richard only went to England twice and both times came as a French invader killing English. He wasted the English treasury on fancy clothes and tournaments that he mysteriously always won. He tried to kill his father multiple times and started a war for seducing the Dauphin of France (Richard was super gay). He went on the crusades, lost a couple of battles and got imprisoned for years. John, on the other hand, lived in England his entire reign, rescued the treasury from bankruptcy, restored law and order, made peace with the barons (after some clashes, to be sure) and granted some Englishmen their first civil rights since Rome.
By any measure, John was a much better English King than Richard, any contemporary document would affirm as much. But mostly because of "Robin Hood" glam wastrel Richard is now better remembered than his objectively better little brother. That's defamation: even into modernity, English Royals won't name their children John- not because of true history but because of false fiction.
So does anyone have any disputes from the link below, where i showed Robert De Brus son fought for the English that day, and is on the Falkirk rolls? How well can we trust historians to narrate for us, when even i, can zoom in on the Falkirk rolls, and find Roberts son on them, fighting for the english, within 10 seconds
Or maybe we are by this period, looking for an actual De Breuse, because here is Roberts son, William, on one of the Falkirk rolls
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/The_Falkirk_Roll_of_Arms_-_Panel_2_-_La_Batayle_le_Eveske_de_Dureme.jpg
We must also remember. I am not even sure if historians are aware. We are not looking for a Robert De Brus. We are looking for a Robert le Fiz
I'm actually studying the Falkirk rolls of arms now. I know just before the battle of Falkirk, Robert Bruce had pledged allegience to Edward. That is not in disupte. However i do not believe even if Robert did fight at Falkirk, he would be stupid enough to have his name put in the Falkirk roll of arms. I dont think the Falkirk roll of arms means that much. But i am studying all the names on the Falkirk roll of arms to find any discrepancies
True. Id rather not be remembered at all if it was made a lie. But the point here is the correlation between defamation and false accusation. Fame is fame, even if its fame for evil. But a history that is wrong has to do more with integrity. Thats how i see it
Alot of people would probably never heard of bruce if not for braveheart.
A lot of Americans, maybe. In Scotland he has always been the first free King of Scotland. Their George Washingto. Nothing about those lies made the movie better so why not make a movie with the same great battle scenes only telling the truth about the people who fought them. I know there are people who think famous is so important that its better to be famous for something evil than not to be famous at all. I would sooner be forgotten five hundred years from now than remembered as a traitor or a fink, personally.
This was an intresting debate. Something i think should be considered is the implications of defamation. Alot of people would probably never heard of bruce if not for braveheart. Was his fame truely diminished? Or was it falsely accused? But this is more philosophy related.
Congratulations to oromagi
thanks for voting!
Bumping over the spam...
bumpin for Buaidh no Bàs!
Mad Max does Macbeth
https://imgflip.com/i/3vy7wy
This debate promised Mad Max...
PRO's R3 sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randall_Wallace
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Falkirk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Falkirk#The_Falkirk_Roll_of_Arms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_of_Guisborough
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/defame#English
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_de_Menteith
http://www.thesocietyofwilliamwallace.com/menteithtraitor.htm
http://www.screenplay.com/downloads/scripts/Braveheart.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_the_Bruce#Burial
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/romanticized
PRO's R2 sources
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_the_Bruce
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism_in_England
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_I_of_Scotland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_I_of_England
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braveheart
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Balliol
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Comyn_III_of_Badenoch
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_the_Bruce#Earl_of_Carrick_%281292%E2%80%931306%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_Berwick_%281296%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dunbar_%281296%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Stewart,_5th_High_Steward_of_Scotland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wallace
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_of_Fordun
https://books.google.com/books?id=O1oJAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA201&lpg=PA201&dq=if+you+had+the+Earl+of+Carrick,+the+Steward+of+Scotland+and+his+brother...you+would+think+your+business+done&source=bl&ots=rqB-ESS3Or&sig=ACfU3U2nN6AMRYzWIsZWngajrXNbo_8y3Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi3nMLE-9DoAhUaV80KHVzFBfYQ6AEwAHoECAsQKQ#v=onepage&q=if%20you%20had%20the%20Earl%20of%20Carrick%2C%20the%20Steward%20of%20Scotland%20and%20his%20brother...you%20would%20think%20your%20business%20done&f=false
https://books.google.com/books?id=qqYHAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=was+born+12th+July+1274,+whether+at+Turnberry+Castle+or+Lochmaben+Castle+has+not+been+definitely+ascertained&source=bl&ots=5o5DuWmsx_&sig=ACfU3U1weKA7y47VxO6M_gXdFHc13FEOwQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj9-d-A_NDoAhUwB50JHaR3BuMQ6AEwAHoECAwQKQ#v=onepage&q=was%20born%2012th%20July%201274%2C%20whether%20at%20Turnberry%20Castle%20or%20Lochmaben%20Castle%20has%20not%20been%20definitely%20ascertained&f=false
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_the_Bruce
http://www.braveheart.co.uk/macbrave/history/wallace/ewart.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wallace_%28poem%29
PRO's R1 sources:
https://www.google.com/search?q=least+historically+accurate+movies&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabella_of_France
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Balliol
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitulation_of_Irvine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_I_of_England
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Falkirk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_invasion_of_Scotland_%281298%29#Invasion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wallace
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wallace#Battle_of_Falkirk
http://www.screenplay.com/downloads/scripts/Braveheart.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaborationism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Comyn_III_of_Badenoch
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_de_Lamberton
http://www.screenplay.com/downloads/scripts/Braveheart.pdf
https://www.ranker.com/list/life-of-robert-the-bruce/genevieve-carlton
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_the_Bruce
If there is a "sticky" on here, then this debate should deserve a "sticky".
What a great topic.
I am extremely interested in this.
But first i must make sure that i feel i have an argument to provide.
I think i definitely do. But need to do some studying first to get my tactics organised.
If someone else comes along in the meantime, so be it.