Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
UK_Widowmaker

OT Braveheart

Recommended Posts

Ah yes..the Border Reiver road, through the Galloway Forest, is a favourite visiting spot of mine.

 

You can see straight away why it was favoured!...A clean, crisp Stream runs alongside it..for watering the animals, and yourself...dense forested areas for many miles..lots of places to hide.

 

I love it there....In fact, it could be quite good fun, becoming a modern day bandit...stopping Tourists cars, and stealing their sandwiches, thermos flasks...and selling their trinkets at Castle Douglas market! :grin:

(not forgetting of course, leaving them Hung, Drawn and quartered hanging from the trees)

Edited by UK_Widowmaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the names of places that get me, like the Devil's Beef Tub, a deep and well hidden bit of glen for hiding stolen herds of animals, near Moffat.

 

To quote Sir Walter Scott, "It looks as if four hills were laying their heads together, to shut out daylight from the dark hollow space between them. A damned deep, black, blackguard-looking abyss of a hole it is".

 

Err, well, that's one way of putting it, .......or more simply, you could hide your stolen cattle there.

 

At least until people started marking such things on maps. :grin:

 

The reivers: -

 

"They were cruel,coarse savages, slaying each other like the beasts

of the forest; and yet they were also poets who could express in

the grand style the inexorable fate of the individual man and

woman, the infinite pity for all cruel things which they none the

less inflicted upon one another. It was not one ballad- maker alone

but the whole cut throat population who felt this magnanimous

sorrow, and the consoling charms of the highest poetry."

 

George M Trevelyan (Historian).

 

 

To be honest, I'm a Borderer born and bred, but I've never been that comfortable with the tales of the Reivers. How can you be proud of murderous criminal forefathers? How can you be an outlaw when there is no law?. You were as likely to lose your livestock and produce to a Scottish Army heading south as an English Army heading North, and suffer the corresponding scorched earth policy when the same army, or what was left of it, retreated. I didn't identify with the Reivers as a child because it got in the way of being Scottish. The Irony is, the culture of the Highlanders is everywhere in modern Scottish Iconography, but it was the Reiver's clans in the Borders who by and large repelled the Border raids and kept the English out while the culture of the young Scotland was being forged. This was Ye Olde Worlde Nomansland.

 

I have often wondered what event or events in history set the precise line of the border between Scotland and England, (and Berwick is OURS by the way). Was it just a line on a map or some ancient boundary from pre-history? I don't actually know.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

 

We have this thing called rednecks, most of whom are of Celtic origin, and that includes the cops. Besides, our government is infamous for its corruption. Thus, feuds are still fairly common here. Even deuling. As opposed to say 100 years ago, we don't have nearly as many killings, but we have a lot of very serious brawls and the odd arson.

 

 

I'm a fourth generation midwestern Lutheran of Scandinavian descent. Our weapons of choice when feuding and brawling are guilt and sarcasm, and they are used in the most brutal and savage means possible.

 

"I can only imagine how disappointed your family must be that you're leaving high school to take a job on the docks in Duluth. But you go get a GED while your working there, because I'm sure THAT will make it all just fine."

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to continue the same theme, I grew up feeling less than Scottish because I also didn't have a Mc or Mac infront of my surname.

 

My surname is Stenhouse, and doesn't sound very Scottish, but apparently it very much is, and it's also very, very old. Stenhouse, actually Stenhousemuir, (meaning the Moor of the stone house) is one of the earliest Scottish place names ever written down in Scotland back in the 12th C, (1180 to be precise), and the text refers to a place already being known as Stenhousemuir, so the name itself was even earlier. There are some who claim the name even has Pictish origins, but this is very doubtful. Both the Stone, stane, or sten, and the 'house or hus'' parts of the word have anglo-saxon origins, and geographically, Stenhousemuir was on the border of pictish territory. It's likely the name actually stems from one of the earliest stone build fortifications or dwellings ever built in Scotland, thus claiming the distinction of this moorland from any other moorland as the one with THE stone house rather than simply A stone house. That is to say, to be identified as the moor with the stone house implies this was the only moor with a stone house. Rather than pictish origin, it was likely contemporary with the picts, but a fortification to protect a settlement from raids by the picts. So who would be building the earliest stone buildings in Scotland before or around 10th 11th Century? I really don't know. Romans? Possibly, but you'd need to go back another 800 years or so to 300AD or thereabouts.

 

Sound nuts? Well, there was a stone building built by the Romans around the 2nd Century called Arthur's O'on on the estate which became known as the Estate of Stenhouse. Undoubtedly an ancient landmark of distinction and national importance, it was demolished in the 18th Century.

 

So THE moor with the 'stane hus' could actually mean my name, Stenhouse, goes all the way back to 2nd Century Scotland. So, who need's a Mc or Mac before their name eh? Bloody incomers. Coming over here, taking our jobs.... :lol:

Edited by Flyby PC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have this thing called rednecks, most of whom are of Celtic origin, and that includes the cops. Besides, our government is infamous for its corruption. Thus, feuds are still fairly common here. Even deuling. As opposed to say 100 years ago, we don't have nearly as many killings, but we have a lot of very serious brawls and the odd arson.

 

This culture of bloody revenge is the main reason why Southerners are noted for the politeness. Nobody wants to start a feud by accident :cool:

 

I thought the dueling that was so popular in the Antebellum South went gradually out of fashion during the late 19th century. I guess I was wrong!

 

People here are mostly very calm, but bad things can happen when they become very drunk and knives are closeby. :grin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(and Berwick is OURS by the way)

 

How dare you Sir...I demand a dual!...If that were the case, it would make the Border Collie Scottish!!...PAH! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must say, as an Australian, I find this thread both informative and highly amusing.

 

My people were kicked out of that part of the world long ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, I'm a Borderer born and bred, but I've never been that comfortable with the tales of the Reivers. How can you be proud of murderous criminal forefathers?

 

I'm a good bit Borderer myself and I don't have a problem with it. It's something of a distinction to say that my ancestors were responsible for the introducting the word "blackmail" into the language. Also, Borderers (at least those who lived mostly on the north side) were literally "not worth the rope to hang" due to the traditional parsimony of Scotland. So when the King of Scotland would periodically send punitive expeditions to the Borders, they just drowned everbody they caught in the nearest creek :cool:

 

But I'm also descended from the some of the more infamous Highland clans, red-handed Vikings, savage Picts, and wild Indians. I've also got a streak of evil Norman. I somehow got my Y chromosome from a Sarmatian (I suppose in the Roman garrison of Hadrian's Wall) and several of my more recent ancestors were pirates. You have to be proud of your forefathers--that's required by man law--and if all you've got are bloody murderers, well, you have to be proud of them. I firmly believe that I'm only alive today because of the toughness bred into me over thousands of years by this motley crew of ancestors. But OTOH, I think they also gave me a personality to get into situations where I needed those genes to survive :lol:

 

Interestingly, there's a whole bunch of Border surnames in my neighborhood: Turnbull, Graham, Kerr, Scott, Armstrong, Elliot, Johnson, Nixon, Percy, to name a few (and a lot of Highland names, too). They mostly came over when this part of Lousy Anna was still Spanish. The Spanish wanted them as settlers as a defense against English encroachment. Thus, in a lot of ways, the Anglo-Scottish disputes crossed the ocean and are responsible for much of US history.

 

I have often wondered what event or events in history set the precise line of the border between Scotland and England, (and Berwick is OURS by the way). Was it just a line on a map or some ancient boundary from pre-history? I don't actually know.

 

As George MacDonald Fraser said in The Steel Bonnets, "Hadrian built the Wall." Before then, it was all Brittania from Land's End to John O' Groats. Different tribes, some language differences, but pretty much the same general culture. But after the wall, there was a huge difference: Roman civilization on 1 side, barbarism on the other, and it stayed that way for several centuries. That was long enough to set what would become England and Scotland on their separate paths.

 

You reall should read that book if you're a Borderer. Fraser wrote the "Flashman" series, but he was a damn good historian.

 

So who would be building the earliest stone buildings in Scotland before or around 10th 11th Century? I really don't know. Romans? Possibly, but you'd need to go back another 800 years or so to 300AD or thereabouts.

 

Sound nuts? Well, there was a stone building built by the Romans around the 2nd Century called Arthur's O'on on the estate which became known as the Estate of Stenhouse. Undoubtedly an ancient landmark of distinction and national importance, it was demolished in the 18th Century.

 

So THE moor with the 'stane hus' could actually mean my name, Stenhouse, goes all the way back to 2nd Century Scotland. So, who need's a Mc or Mac before their name eh? Bloody incomers. Coming over here, taking our jobs.... :lol:

 

Hehehe, you've got some deep roots!

 

Stone houses go WAY WAY back in Scotland, at least to the Neolithic. For instance, in Orkney there's the whole stone village of Skara Brae (3200-2500 BC), not to mention many single houses scattered about. Given that the huge number of megalithic monuments date the to same general time, the ancient Scots were pretty good at piling up rocks. But they probably didn't have much choice. Without a lot forest and stone axes sucking for chopping down anything big enough to make a lot of boards from, stone was their best option for a permanent, reasonably warm structure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thing is, when push comes to shove, it doesn't really matter. It's not as if I can turn up at Stenhousemuir and say "Hi, I'm home!", and expect to take possession of the place..... Hmmm, if only.

 

Even if I did have ancestors dating back to the 2nd Century? Guess what, so did you. We all did.

 

And it doesn't matter if the English say Berwick is in England, because everybody knows it really belongs to Scotland.

 

It might be interesting to get a DNA report to really see what you're made of, but I'd need to hide the results or get hold of a marker pen to scribble out all the 'Made in England' bits. :lol: :lol: :lol: Just kidding UKW. :grin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Ostfriesland (East Freesia) we have simpler way to deal with naughty neighbours: we ignore them to death.

Would perhaps not work in a melting pot like the USA, but we are all Ostfriesen there, and then it works.

:grin:

Edited by Olham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thing is, when push comes to shove, it doesn't really matter. It's not as if I can turn up at Stenhousemuir and say "Hi, I'm home!", and expect to take possession of the place..... Hmmm, if only.

 

I wouldn't advise trying. As it happens, I can prove I'm descended from the De Clair family who built Caerphilly Castle down in SE Wales. When I went there, I had my pedigree in my pocket, and I pounded my walking stick on the drawbridge and yelled, "Open the gates, the lord has returned!" And do you know those bastards of the National Trust tried to stick me with 1000 years of back taxes?!?!?!?!?! So we compromised and they just let me in for free if I promised not to raise an army and march on London :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.... and they just let me in for free if I promised not to raise an army and march on London :lol:

 

This was Wales. I think I can see where you went wrong. Now if you HAD promised to raise an army to march on London.... :grin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was Wales. I think I can see where you went wrong. Now if you HAD promised to raise an army to march on London.... :grin:

 

Indeed..an army of Welshmen, would only have to speak..and the Thames Flood barrier would collapse under the strain :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a mystery to me why directors and producers are so interested in making historical movies that are not actually historical. Isn't history more often than not exciting enough just like it is, without any need to invent things and change the course of events?

About his "Three Musketeers" and some other works, Alexandre Dumas once said something like: "No matter you f**k History, provided you give her nice children!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, the hatred between Saxons and Jocks has been a long and intense story. I've heard that in an English town, former stronghold near the border (Newcastle perhaps), an anachronistic, ancient unabrogated law still allows to kill any armed Scot within the city walls. But I can mistake about the town. Heard about that, Widowmaker?

 

I have read a French book about Waterloo, where the author felt sad that the Highlanders fought so bravely, here and in the Peninsula before, for the Hannoverian kings who had humiliated them so much, against their former friends of the Auld Alliance who supported them up to Culloden (and hosted Bonnie Prince Charlie and supporters thereafter).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that's York Captaine Vengeur, and you have to use a bow and arrow.

 

I'm a Scot, I've seen York. I don't have any problem with this law. (I jest, York is beautful place).

 

And on the subject of the Auld Alliance, a lot of people do think this began with Bonnie Prince Charlie, but it actually began waaaay back to the 13th Century, probably as far back as whenever Scotland and France recognised a common enemy in England. It started out as a formal treaty signed between a puppet Scottish king and Philip IV of France. Against who ? I hear you cry. It's that man again, you guessed it, Edward I of England.

 

The puppet Scottish king, John Bailliol, was actually put on the throne by Edward I, and known as Toom Tabard - 'Empty Shirt'. It was also his nephew, John Comyn, who Robert the Bruce murdered in his quest to become king, and co-incidentally, Comyn while a patriot, was one of the Scottish nobles charged by Edward I to hunt down and hand over William Wallace. Wallace was subsequently betrayed. There is no direct link back to Comyn, but if he could of, he would of.

 

I like history.

 

Edit: Incidentally, I'm not too hot on the Normans, but as I understand it, the Normans originally were Vikings. The 'Nor' Men were invaders from the North, who invaded France, and settled there, - in Normandy. The Normans are Vikings with a subtle hint of garlic. :rofl:

Edited by Flyby PC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's another twist too. Robert the Bruce murdered John Comyn because both had claims on the Scottish throne, but Comyn had a better claim to the Scottish throne than Bruce did. John Comyn had a son however, also called John, whom, on hearing the news of his fathers murder, Edward I at once spirited away to England to keep safe from harm. (I believe there might even have been some connection by blood, but remote). The young John Comyn remained in England for the next 8 years until 1314, when he returned to Scotland and took to field of Bannockburn with the English, and against Bruce now the King of Scotland. The very Bruce who had murdered his father and seized 'his' throne. Sadly, that's where his fairy tale ended. John Comyn the younger, did not survive the day but was slain during the famous Battle of Bannockburn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, the hatred between Saxons and Jocks has been a long and intense story. I've heard that in an English town, former stronghold near the border (Newcastle perhaps), an anachronistic, ancient unabrogated law still allows to kill any armed Scot within the city walls. But I can mistake about the town. Heard about that, Widowmaker?

 

I have read a French book about Waterloo, where the author felt sad that the Highlanders fought so bravely, here and in the Peninsula before, for the Hannoverian kings who had humiliated them so much, against their former friends of the Auld Alliance who supported them up to Culloden (and hosted Bonnie Prince Charlie and supporters thereafter).

 

Ah, flypc is correct...It is York.

 

Newcastle residents only kill people from Sunderland, who venture into our hallowed city! :drinks:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Flypc...was Robert the Bruce a bit of a whoosie?....He was certainly portraid like that in Braveheart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey Flypc...was Robert the Bruce a bit of a whoosie?....He was certainly portraid like that in Braveheart

 

Well, he wasn't man enough to wrestle a bull, which is of course well within the powers of most female Scots :grin: . The story goes that about the time of Bannockburn, the Bruce was riding along when he was charged by a bull and would have been killed had not one of my scumbag Borderer ancestors, William of Rule, been on hand and tackled the beast. The grateful sovereign dubbed him Lord Turnbull and gave him lands, thus creating Clan Turnbull, to the subsequent woe of folks on both sides of the Border and across the seas. I suppose Auld Willy was glad of the gift, but no doubt wondered why the Bruce couldn't have done the same himself :cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely not.

 

On the eve of Bannockburn, Sir Henry de Bohun, nephew of the Earl of Hereford, mounted in full armour, spotted Robert the Bruce isolated from his troops and charged him. Bruce was also mounted, but without armour, carrying only a battle axe. As Bohun charged, Bruce side stepped the charge, stood up in the stirrups, and cleaved Bohun's head in two.

 

I need to find it, but there's a brilliant version of the story about it, saying the Bruce's horse 'skitted to the side like a deer' or something like it. I'll need to track that down. It's boy's own stuff!! A quick google isn't finding it.

 

It is true however that Bruce did take to the field at Falkirk on the English side when Wallace was defeated, but Bruce definitely was not a man you would want to trifle with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely not.

 

On the eve of Bannockburn, Sir Henry de Bohun, nephew of the Earl of Hereford, mounted in full armour, spotted Robert the Bruce isolated from his troops and charged him. Bruce was also mounted, but without armour, carrying only a battle axe. As Bohun charged, Bruce side stepped the charge, stood up in the stirrups, and cleaved Bohun's head in two.

 

I need to find it, but there's a brilliant version of the story about it, saying the Bruce's horse 'skitted to the side like a deer' or something like it. I'll need to track that down. It's boy's own stuff!! A quick google isn't finding it.

 

It is true however that Bruce did take to the field at Falkirk on the English side when Wallace was defeated, but Bruce definitely was not a man you would want to trifle with.

 

 

 

Love my Scottish History...my clan is the Moffats { yep bloody reivers again lol } altough , upon reading up, it seems they fought with Longshanks against Wallace but with Bruce on the fields of Bannockburn, used the 'Devils Beef Tub ' as the hideout..so it was their cattle that hid there lol

 

Now what is interesting is that both Bruce and Wallace are Ayrshire born and bred { as I am } and before folks go on about Elderslie and Wallace being born there, Blind Harry's chronicles talked about him being born in Ellerslie { note the different spelling...Elderslie as a name didn't exist as a town until the 14th century I believe }. This is a part of Kilmarnock, where Wallace's uncle had a castle at Riccerton, although his father did own lands in Renfrewshire.

 

Many of his deeds were commited in Ayrshire { if true that is }...for instance, he had a small skirmish at Irvine { not far from where I was born }, the barn incident was at Ayr, where he also attacked the local English garrison, he also had a victory at Loudon Hill, just outside Kilmarnock, where the mid march and west march were connected..

 

There was a monument at Knadgerhill in Irvine,where various stories show up, which are true can only be guessed...one being that Wallace setup camp before fighting the English at the ford over the River Irvine...although I think this story is probably more true

 

In 1297, Bruce, encouraged by Bishop Wishart, raised the standard of revolt at Irvine (the reason why he was absent at the Battle of Stirling Bridge). However, the rising failed and Bruce, rather than join Wallace after the Scots victory at Stirling Bridge, kept a low profile until he could determine what the English reaction would be.
Edited by 02RAF_Puff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure the colourful text about Robert the Bruce is the Lanercost chronicle, but I can't fnd the actual text.... :dntknw:

 

Edit: No, it's not the Lanercost chronicle. Where did I read it? How annoying...

 

 

Nope, just can't find it. Bruce was on a small pony which flitted out the way as the armoured knight charged, and Bruce hit de Bohun so hard he was split from the crown of his head to the breast bone, so hard indeed that Bruce had smashed his battle axe. The clash was seen by both armies, greatly fortifying the Scots, and unsettling the English in equal measure.

 

When Bruce trotted back to his army, he was criticised for taking such risks, but Bruce merely expressed frustration that he had broken his battle axe.

 

It isn't just a tale, it was was well witnessed, and actually happened.

 

It always tickles me when I watch the All Blacks doing their Haka as their prelude to battle.... thay have no idea. :grin:

Edited by Flyby PC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..