A history book is just another history book…yawn, yawn, yawn! But, this one was actually a little better than most I’ve read, and could have been more meaningful if Robert the Bruce was my ancestor AND had I followed along with the map in the book, or any map for that matter, of his travels and battles. But, he's not. I read this book and took lots and lots of notes ( which was too long to add here on Goodreads) for a friend of mine, who is a direct ancestor of Robert the Bruce. And because I took notes, I learned so much about the history of Scotland and its people and their battles all in the name of “freedom”. I don't regret reading this book for one minute.

Although it did receive very high ratings, and is said to be a great and interesting read, a couple of reviewers on Amazon claim this work to be more historical fiction rather than true history. They say Scott writes as facts many things that are only speculation and have never been proven in history, but they don’t point out any particulars. One reviewer suggested G.W.S. Barrow's "Robert Bruce and the Community Realm of Scotland" as a solid documentary historical read for the serious individual looking for super accuracy and the truth. But, beware, he warns it's extremely dry reading. Also suggested reading for those who can't read "history" books, there are Nigel Tranter's trilogy of historical novels about Robert Bruce that might be a little more enjoyable to read. Also, there is a movie, exclusive on Netflix, called "Outlaw King" (2018), starring Chris Pine as Robert the Bruce.
----------

( )

The author is obviously somewhat biased in favour of his subject, and often uncritical in reporting speeches from Barbour as though they were verbatim records of what was actually said in reality; but these are probably amongst the reason why this is such an extremely readable and capturing historical book. ( )

One of these days I have to ask Mom why she named me “Bruce”. No ancestry issues; as far as anybody interested in genealogy has been able to figure out, we’re German on both sides back to the middle of the 18th century (tracking is unclear; my ancestors seem to have been singularly reluctant to keep diaries or write names in the family Bibles). Besides, I’m A Bruce, not The Bruce.


Despite my familial uncertainty, the national ancestry of Robert McNair Scott, author of Robert the Bruce, King of Scots is not in doubt. If the name wasn’t enough, we find that Robert the Bruce was singularly brave, chivalrous, noble, and militarily skilled, while his English opponents Edward I and Edward II were not (well, Edward I is grudgingly acknowledged as a decent general). To be fair, although Robert the Bruce’s abilities might be somewhat exaggerated, Edward I was a fairly nasty piece of work even for the Middle Ages; he had all the Bruce’s male relatives he was able to capture hanged, drawn and quartered; and locked the females (including the Bruce’s wife and daughter) in cages for public display; and while the Bruce’s generalship against Edward I mostly consisted of surviving he was pretty effective against Edward II.


Historical background: Scotland had been at peace for some years, and was doing reasonably well in commerce and agriculture. On the death of Alexander III, the throne of Scotland passed to his young granddaughter (all his sons and daughters predeceased him), Margaret of Norway, who was put on a ship for Scotland, arrived, and promptly dropped dead. That put the inheritance in some doubt, with a number of contenders with reasonable claims; the Scottish nobility looked for a neutral adjudicator to decide the succession and picked Edward I of England, who after some thought decided that the legitimate heir to the Scottish throne was him. After some expression of astonishment by the Scots, Edward did propose a puppet king, John Balliol, as his vassal; Balliol was in the line of succession although he was a Fleming who had never actually set foot in Scotland. Recognizing his inutility, the Scots quickly nicknamed Balliol “Toom Tabard” (which means “empty suit”; the study of history is full of surprises). The Bruce family initially swore fealty to Edward, not having much choice in the matter (many of the Scots nobility were handicapped by possessing estates on both sides of the border and thus were not firmly in one camp or another); however, Robert eventually revolted. This was initially singularly unsuccessful; at first the Bruce fought according to medieval rules of chivalry and tried formal battles. The Scots were short and cavalry and missile weapons and fought in “hedgehog” formations of spearmen called schiltrons; unfortunately Edward I was adept at combined arms and simply deluged the schiltrons with arrows until they broke, then mopped up survivors with cavalry. The Bruce’s army was at one point reduced to three – himself and a couple of bodyguards. Thanks to the study of arachnology, the Bruce persisted and switched to guerilla warfare tactics – picking off small groups of English now and then and raiding into England for supplies. The turning point came after Edward I died; his son Edward II, eventually to become notorious for the manner of his death, was as militarily inept as his father was proficient. Edward II marched into Scotland with huge cavalry armies that he couldn’t supply; the Bruce simply scorched earth and retreated, then invaded England and looted when Edward withdrew. The one pitched battle the Bruce risked – Bannockburn – was a Scottish decisive victory – Edward never brought up his archers, the English were short of supply, and there were numerous arguments between his commanders over who ranked who. The English cavalry attacked unsupported and over unsuitable ground, couldn’t break the schiltrons and were routed. The English nobles were already pretty dissatisfied with Edward II and began clandestine and eventually open revolt; the Bruce continued to raid northern England to the extent that numerous towns began paying him protection money. He eventually concluded a treaty with Edward II that left him undisputed King of Scots (Edward II later repudiated the treaty, but it didn’t matter as by then his nobles were in open revolt and he was in no position to do anything about Scotland).


I found this mostly valuable in allowing me to temporally connect the events in two quasi-fictional accounts – Mel Gibson’s Braveheart and Christopher Marlowe’s Edward II – admittedly kind of an odd combination. It fits, though, as Scott’s book is quasi-fictional as well; much of the material is anecdotal (admittedly, from contemporary anecdotes). The book includes a good map of Scotland, a couple of genealogical tables, and a nice capsule chronology, and battle maps of Bannockburn. Everything should be taken with a pinch of salt, of course. ( )

A clear concise history of the man. ( )

Stirring biography. But as a Scot named Bruce, I may be biased.
Read in Samoa Oct 2002 ( )