The rise and triumph
ofRobert Bruce
Sources
The ambitions of Robert Bruce
From For the lion: a history of the Scottish Wars of Independence 1296-1357, Raymond Campbell Paterson, 1996.
For Robert of Carrick the rapidly changing political situation was alarming. He was clearly alienated from the Comyn leadership of the national cause, and seems to have played little part in the war since he was replaced as Guardian in 1300, only defending his own territories. The return of King John and his son Edward would obviously deprive him of any prospect or ruling Scotland. But in view of his own ambiguous conduct, and the continuing loyalty of his father to the English, he might be in danger of losing his parental inheritance in Annandale, or even the earldom of Carrick itself. With these fears at the front of his mind, the time had come for him to make his peace with Edward.
From Scotland: the later Middle Ages, Ranald Nicholson, 1974.
In October 1301 there was a report from France that ‘the king of France’s people have taken Sir John Balliol from the place where he was sent to reside by the pope to his castle in Picardy, and some people believe that the king of France will send him with a great force to Scotland as soon as possible’. Such a prospect was disquieting to at least one notable Scot. For two years after being dropped from the guardianship in 1300Robert Bruce, the earl of Carrick had probably contented himself with defending his earldom against all outsiders, whether English or Scots. Yet neutrality would no longer suit his purposes when it seemed that a Balliol restoration was at hand. By February 1302 Bruce ‘yielded himself to the peace and will of King Edward I in the hope of receiving his mercy’.
To what extent do the sources agree on the part played in the Wars of Independence by Robert Bruce, the earl of Carrick, between 1300 and 1302? (5)
From, For freedom alone: the Declaration of Arbroath 1320, Edward Cowan, 2008
Posterity has proved bewildered and embarrassed by Bruce’s changes of allegiance, words such as ‘traitor’, ‘betrayal’, ‘treachery’ and ‘turncoat’, to name but a few, coming uncomfortably to mind; but this is to misunderstand the circumstances and to misconstrue the period, let alone Bruce’s personal position. The changing of sides in fourteenth-century Scotland can be more usefully compared to a football transfer or the recruitment of a boardroom director by one company from another, except that Bruce was acting from less selfish motives than those modern analogues. He always had to give priority to the interests of the family which, after all, had a valuable claim to the kingship. He was the head, the custodian and servant of the family, its privileges, rights, honours and obligations’.
From In search of Scotland, Fiona Watson, 2001.
We must accept that everyone believed that the question of Scotland was settled in 1305, at least in the short term. This helps to explain the reaction to Robert Bruce’s seizure of the throne early in 1306: from 1300 onwards the Bruce cause was effectively dead within Scottish politics. Added to this was the fact that, despite the earl of Carrick’s defection to Edward in 1302, the Comyns were clearly being rehabilitated into royal favour as part of the settlement of 1305. Edward made considerable efforts this time to involve sufficient key members of the Scottish political community in the government of their country to encourage loyalty to the new regime. Once again, Bruce was heading down a dead end in his plans to become king.
His conflict with and victory over Scottish opponents
From The Chronicle of the Scottish nation, John of Fordun, 1370s.
He (Bruce) humbly approached a certain noble, John Comyn, who was then the most powerful man in the country, and laid before him the cruel and endless tormenting of the people, and his own kind-hearted plan to bring this to an end. Robert gave John the choice of one of two courses: either that John should reign, and take unto himself the kingdom, forever granting to Robert all his own lands and possessions, or that all Robert’s possessions should come into the possession of John, while the kingdom would go to Robert. John was perfectly satisfied with the latter suggestion, and an agreement was made between them, by indentures with their seals attached.
But John broke his word, and heedless of the sacredness of his oath, kept accusing Robert before the king of England, through messengers and letters.
The aforesaid Robert, learning of John’s treachery, returned home, and a day was appointed for him and John to meet together at Dumfries. John Comyn was accused of treachery and he denied it. The evil speaker was stabbed and wounded in the church of the Friars. And the wounded man was laid behind the altar by the friars.
On being asked by those around if he would live, he straightaway answered, ‘I can’. His enemies, on hearing this, gave him another wound as he died.
From The Scottish civil war: the Bruces and the Balliols and the war for control of Scotland, Michael Penman, 2002.
It is very likely that Bruce’s canvassing support for his claim to the kingship had reached the point where he had to be sure either of Comyn’s neutrality or his vested interest. According to English chronicle sources, Bruce falsely accused Comyn of betrayal and carried out a premeditated plan to despatch Comyn before the high altar. By contrast, in Scottish chronicle accounts, Comyn was the ‘evil speaker’ and deserved to die in hot blood. In the immediate short term, Bruce’s sacrilegious murder cannot have been pre-arranged. The old personal animosities and frustrations of 1299 between these two ambitious lords must have simply come pouring out. At best, Robert could be said to have been forced by his precipitate actions to have put into premature motion already well laid plans. The rapid course of events over the next two months suggests that Robert immediately set his sights on Scone.
From In the footsteps of Robert Bruce, Alan Young and Michael J Stead, 1999.
The murder of John Comyn, acknowledged by both Scots and English as the most powerful man in the country, was a dramatic and important event in Scottish history, as well as in Robert Bruce’s career. It seems most probable that their bitter antagonisms of the past – they had literally come to blows at a baronial council at Peebles in 1299 – were instantly revived and, in a heated argument, mutual charges of treachery were made. It is unlikely that the murder was premeditated. Bruce struck Comyn with a dagger and his men attacked him with swords. The fact that Bruce was enthroned king of Scots only six weeks after the murder reveals that some preliminary planning had been carried out. The murder undoubtedly accelerated plans that Bruce was already preparing with Wlliam Lamberton, the bishop of St Andrews, and Robert Wishart, the bishop of Glasgow.
From Robert Bruce and the community of the realm of Scotland, G W S Barrow, 2005.
It is contrary to everything we know of Bruce’s character that he should have called Comyn to the Greyfriars’ church with the secret intention of killing him. The place of the meeting and the kiss – though it was not the kiss of peace – with which the two men greeted each other all suggest that Bruce meant only to put some plan to Comyn. No doubt Bruce’s intention was to take the throne himself, and give his estates to Comyn. Comyn can hardly be blamed for refusing. Comyn would have none of it. It may be that Comyn called Bruce a traitor. It seems certain that Bruce struck at Comyn with a dagger. At this, Bruce’s companions attacked him with their swords. Mortally wounded he was left for dead. John Comyn’s uncle, rushing to defend his nephew, was killed by a blow on the head from the sword of Christopher Seton. Soon the town was in uproar, the Scots flocking to Bruce’s support. It was then reported that Comyn was still alive. The Franciscan friars had carried him into the vestry to treat his wounds and
Administer the last sacrament.
From The Chronicle of Walter of Guisborough
Bruce, fearing Comyn, who was powerful and faithful to the English king, and knowing he could be stopped by him in his ambition to be king, sent to him asking, Would he please come to him at Dumfries to deal with certain business affecting them both. Comyn, suspecting nothing, came to him with a few men. When they were speaking together in turn, with words which seemed peaceful, suddenly, in a reversal and with different words, Bruce began to accuse him of betrayal, and that he had accused him to the king of England and had worsened his position to his harm. When Comyn spoke peaceably, Bruce did not wish to hear his speech, but, as he had conspired, struck him with his foot and sword and went away out. But Bruce’s men followed Comyn and cast him down on the paving before the altar, leaving him for dead. Robert Comyn, his uncle, ran to bring him help, but Christopher Seton met him, struck his head with a sword and he died. Bruce came out, saw John Comyn’s fine horse and mounted it, and his men mounted with him. They went to the castle and took it. Then some evil folk told him that Comyn still lived, for the friars had carried him down to the altar vestry, to treat him. By the tyrant’s order he was pulled out of the vestry and killed on the steps of the high altar.
From In the footsteps of Robert Bruce, Alan Young and Michael J Stead, 1999.
After initially friendly words Bruce turned on Comyn and accused him of treacherously reporting to Edward I that he, Bruce, was plotting against him. In a heated argument, mutual charges of treachery were made. It is unlikely that the murder was premeditated. Bruce struck Comyn with a dagger and his men attacked him with swords. Comyn’s uncle, Robert, was killed by Christopher Seton when he attempted to defend his nephew. According to both English and Scottish tradition, Comyn himself was mortally wounded, left for dead and finally killed later. In the circumstances of Anglo-Scottish politics at the time, it is most likely that the argument was about having the ear of the English king and his influence and backing.
To what extent do the sources agree about what happened in the Greyfriars’ church in Dumfries in February 1306? (5)
Letter from Edward I to Pope Clement V, 1306
Robert Bruce has committed treason against his liege lord the king of England, to whom he owed homage and fealty, and has murdered John Comyn, lord of Badenoch in the church of the Friars minor in the town of Dumfries, beside the high altars, because the said John would not give assent to the treason which the said Robert planned to commit against the said king of England, that being to revive the war against him and make himself king of Scotland.
How useful is the source in explaining why Bruce murdered John Comyn in 1306? (5)
From In search of Scotland, Fiona Watson, 2001
Bruce’s actions in 1306 seem like those of a man with nothing to lose. Whatever prompted the meeting between these bitter rivals, Bruce and Comyn to meet in the Greyfriars church in Dumfries in February 1306, the end result – the murder of Comyn – forced Bruce to gamble everything, including the lives of his own family, in a make-or-break attempt on the Scottish throne.
The timing was appalling, so soon after the end of the previous war, with the voluntary oaths of allegiance still in force. Add to that the brutal and sacrilegious murder of Scotland’s most important political figure and the actions of February-March 1306 seem almost suicidal. The automatic opposition of the Comyns and their allies, as well as those who still saw John Balliol as the rightful king (and there were many), meant that there were precious few prepared to back the new king, either at his inauguration or in his army.
How far does the source explain the opposition of many Scots to Robert Bruce? (10)
Charges to the pope against Robert Wishart, bishop of Glasgow.
After the murder of John Comyn in the GreyfriarsChurch at Dumfries, the bishop gave neither sentence of excommunication nor exercised the office of bishop for the deed of such a murder and sacrilege, but behaved as one who approved of and agreed with it.
Then after this, when the earl of Carrick by force of war wanted to make himself king, the bishop had made for him, and stored in his own wardrobe, the robes with which the earl had himself vested and attired on the day on which he wished to have himself called king of Scotland; and he sent this attire, together with a banner of the late king of Scotland, which he had long before hidden in his treasury, to the earl at the abbey of Scone before the day when he had himself called king of Scotland.
Summoned to Berwick, he joined the earl of Carrick and stayed with him.
And moreover the bishop went preaching through the land to make the folks rise against the king’s faith and peace, to maintain the estate of the earl, and preaching that it is good to fight the king of England as to go in God’s service to the Holy Land.
The, having been given by the king wood to make the steeple of his cathedral church of Glasgow, the bishop had siege engines made of this wood to be mounted against the castles of the king and had them moved and set before Kirkintilloch Castle, which was in the king’s hands, and had missiles thrown from these engines at the castle and had it besieged until the castle was relieved by the king’s men who lifted the siege and burned the engines.
From Robert Bruce: our most valiant prince, king and lord, Colm McNamee, 2006.
Certainly there was nothing left to Robert now but further flight into the wilderness. It is impossible to imagine that he could avoid despair on taking to the heather after Methven and Strathtay. He had gambled and he had lost heavily. Whether he cursed his ambition for bringing ruin on his family and friends, he surely regretted whatever had transpired in the church at Dumfries, for it set in motion a chain of events that could now – it seemed – only end in death and disgrace. Working from the benefit of hindsight, commentators have tended to exaggerate such faint glimmers of hope as remained to him. Recovery from this desperate position was by no means inevitable, however; it was, rather, miraculous.
From Scotland: the later Middle Ages, Ranald Nicholson, 1974.
It was probably only on his return to Carrick that Bruce learned the full measure of the disasters that had been inflicted upon his family and friends. If hitherto he had been merely self-seeking and ambitious, he was no longer so. His crown had been too dearly bought by the sacrifices of others. Ambition and chivalric adventure had ended in a tragedy that he was to redeem by identifying himself completely with the highest traditions of kingship and devotion to the cause of independence.
Letter written by a Scot on the English side shortly after Loudoun Hill, 15 May 1307.
I hear Bruce never had the good will of his own followers or of the people so much with him as now. It appears that God is with him, for he has destroyed King Edward’s power both among the English and Scots. The people believe that Bruce will carry all before him. I fully believe that if Bruce can get away to the north, he will find people all ready at his will more than ever, unless King Edward can send more troops. May it please God to prolong Edward’s life, for men say openly that when he is gone the victory will go to Bruce.
How useful is the source in describing Bruce’s position following his return to the mainland in 1307? (5)
A report from the sheriff of Banff to Edward II, possibly April 1308.
Robert Bruce with his army came to the castle of Inverlochy and he caused that castle to be handed over to him by the deceit and treason of the men in the castle. The castle at Nairn is burned by the same Robert and the castle of Urquhart is lost. Moreover, Robert Bruce with his force besieged and strongly assaulted the castle of Elgin where sir Gilbert Glencairnie junior was. When a truce was made with sir Gilbert, he went to the castle of Banff where he fell ill and stayed in a certain manor house of mine for two nights. He burned the manor and all my grain, and hearing of the arrival of the earls of Buchan and Atholl, with all his force he moved to the Slioch, and destroyed a manor of mine next to my castle.