The English view Wallace and Bruce in a manner in which they are portryed as murderers with no care for human life at all. In terms of English history, he lead an army of Scots to Falkirk just so they could get Butchered by the English army, even though Edward I was a butcher with his own army. The English source book fails to acknowledge the fact that Wallace was betrayed by his own kind, not capture single handed by the English. Bottom line, the English HATED him. When Wallace died, it was recorded as the end of a man without morals. There is no acknowledgement of his public and painful execution, or that his body was divided and sent to different parts of Scottland. Bruce was treated no different. The second war for Scottish independece is blamed solely on him, even though the English provoked it. The Scots on the other hand, view him as a hero who lead them to great victories, and a symbol for Scottish patriotism. They believe him as their Caesar, or a general compared to that of Robert E. Lee. Wallace thought that the English's opinion of him was in reality, the personality of the English.
The Scots think of themselves during this time as patriots, fighting a tyrany. When they invaded Ireland, they arrived with the intention to be liberators, but it turned into an occupation, and Irish opinion got worse. Eventually, the Scots abandoned their campagn. Bruce to the Scots was their great king, and a public hero overall.
A couple of things:
ReplyDelete1) Formality. This should be academic writing; always err on the side of academic tone.
2) Thesis statement: in any case where you are creating content, develop it around a thesis.
3) Don't know that the comparison of Bruce to Caesar is accurate; you would have to develop that argument -- I would like to see you make it.