Robert the Bruce's defeat

"Robert the Bruce" was the King Of Scotland from 1306 to 1329. The Scots and English had on-going wars for decades (if not centuries.) In the time period being discussed, Edward II was the King of England.

So "Robert the Bruce" (leading his Scotish armies) won a battle against the English (who's King was Edward the 2nd) on June 23rd, 1314 on that site.

Does that make it any clearer for you?

Yes, you are right.

"Bruce's defeat of the English" means he defeated the English; Bruce's army won.

Otherwise it would read "Bruce's defeat by the English" and that would mean, the English won. But they didn't, not that time.

Figure "The Bruce" to be a title and it'll all make sense

The explanation is DEFINITELY clear for me! since you have pointed out "Robert the Bruce" can be particularly understood as a compound noun.
Thank you all!


PS. What I didn't get is the title "the Bruce". What does the title mean?
Can "Robert the Bruce" be grammatically comprehended as " the Bruce King -- Robert?

I read the following from some encyclopedia:

In several years of mixed fortunes thereafter, Robert had both the English and his opponents within Scotland to contend with.
Edward I's death, in 1307, and the dissension in England under Edward II were assets that Bruce took full advantage of. He
excelled as a statesman and as a military leader specializing in harrying tactics; it is ironic that he should be remembered best for
the atypical set-piece battle that he incurred and won at Bannockburn in 1314.

What does "set-piece" mean?

Oristar, I'm not up on Scottish titles, but I think that you have one word too many here:

Can "Robert the Bruce" be grammatically comprehended as " the Bruce King -- Robert?

I think that "Bruce" is a title like king or duke. But it doesn't precede the name, as does king or duke. So King Robert and Duke Robert would be Robert the Bruce.

If anyone knows more about than matters than I do, please jump in.

I think this is one of those times in which tradition transcends grammar. This is an historical figure and "Robert the Bruce" has no extra letters. At one time, I had the explanation of this reference, but memory just isn't serving as it should.

When tradition collides with grammar, grammar names it a rule: "collocation".

It seems more like a question of historical knowledge.


PS. Again, what does "set-piece" mean? Who would like to explain it? TIA

Oristar -- I got this from Merriam-Webster online; m-w.com --



definition 3 is the one you're looking for...

set' piece"


1. an arrangement of slow-burning fireworks forming a design or composition when lighted.
2. Theatrical:a piece of scenery used as part of a stage set, as a profile or three-dimensional construction built to stand independently on the stage floor: A few set pieces simulating rocks and a fence constituted the scenery for the first act.
3. a work of art, literature, music, etc., having a prescribed thematic and formal structure: the set pieces of Restoration comedy.
4. a scene, action, or the like, having a conventional form and functioning as part of the structure of a work of art, literature, etc.
5. a military operation carried out according to a rigid plan.
6. (in a novel, narrative poem, or the like) a passage more or less extraneous to the sequence of events, introduced to supply background, color, or the like.

Robert the Bruce:

(The Bruce seems to mean that he was, perhaps, chief of that clan? Or, as Scottish kings go, this Robert was a member of that clan?)

Robert I

Robert I or Robert the Bruce,1274?1329, king of Scotland (1306?29). He belonged to the illustrious Bruce family and was the grandson of that Robert the Bruce who in 1290 was an unsuccessful claimant to the Scottish throne. He became (1292) earl of Carrick and on his father's death (1304) assumed the lordship of Annandale and of the Bruce lands in England. In 1296, Robert swore fealty to Edward I of England, but the following year he joined the struggle for national independence. He appears to have taken part only intermittently until an obscure contest between him and John Comyn (d. 1306) for the adherence of the Scottish nationalists resulted in Comyn's murder (probably unpremeditated) by Bruce or his followers. In defiance of Edward I, Robert was then crowned king at Scone on Mar. 27, 1306. Defeated by the English at Methven (1306), he fled to the west and apparently took refuge on the island of Rathlin, off the coast of Ireland. The Bruce estates were confiscated by Edward, and punishment was meted out to Robert's followers. From this time of discouragement stems the legend that Robert learned courage and hope from watching a spider persevere in spinning its web.

Returning in 1307, Robert won a victory at Loudon Hill, which brought him new adherents. Edward I attempted to lead a new expedition against the rebellious Scots but died on the way and was succeeded by his son, Edward II, who failed to pursue his father's vigorous course. Robert was able to consolidate his hold on Scotland and to recapture lands and castles from the English. Stirling was besieged by the Scots and so hard pressed that the English governor finally agreed to its surrender if relief from England did not arrive before June 24, 1314. On June 23 and 24, at nearby Bannockburn, Robert overwhelmingly defeated the large English relief force led by Edward II. The war went on, and in 1318 the Scots recaptured Berwick. A truce, made in 1323, lasted only until 1327, when the bellicose young Edward III led an unsuccessful expedition to the north. Finally, by the Treaty of Northampton (1328), the English recognized the independence of Scotland and the validity of Robert's title to the throne.

Robert spent the short remainder of his life in his castle at Cardross and died there, perhaps of leprosy. As he requested, his embalmed heart was given to Sir James de Douglas, lord of Douglas, to be carried to Jerusalem for burial. Douglas was killed in Spain, but (according to tradition) Robert's heart was recovered, brought back to Scotland, and buried in Melrose Abbey. By his courage and skill Robert had freed Scotland from English rule. He was succeeded by his son, David II.

See biographies by A. M. Mackenzie (1934, repr. 1957), G. W. S. Barrow (1965, rev. ed. 1988), and R. M. Scott (1989, repr. 1996); C. McNamee, The Wars of the Bruces (1997).

I haven't looked this up, but I seem to remember that the surname of Robert the Bruce is a variation of "de Brus", a Norman-French name.

Think of General de Gaulle, a modern example for comparison.

So, French name, Scottish knight, fighting the English. Who said history wasn't interesting?

Oh yes, set-piece. Here, that just means a standing fight, a battle where battle lines are "drawn"; as distinct from a moving action, a skirmish, or the "harrying tactics" mentioned earlier.

I have a pound note, issued by the Bank of Scotland, with an illustration of Robert the Bruce in armor on horseback. Got it in Aberdeen some years ago. It's a prized possession! Pound notes were already history in England, but still in use in Scotland. McTag--is the pound note still extant in Scotland?

They've got a statue in Aberdeen of William Wallace with a quote to the effect that he couldn't be executed for treason as he had no allegiance to the English crown.

Thanks all.

Regarding "set-piece", I've been enlightened.
But the title "the Bruce" is still suspended -- it seems that we cannot call him "King Robert" according to "Bobert the Bruce", cos we could not make sure for this. While calling him "Robert, titled the Bruce" is too funny...

I cannot see your difficulty here. de Brus or "the Bruce" is a family name. As is Windsor, the family name of the present queen of Britain.
We never refer to her as Queen Elizabeth Windsor, of course, but we could, I suppose. She is entitled Queen Elizabeth II, and Queen Elizabeth I was called Elizabeth Tudor.

It would perhaps be easier to think of the name "the Bruce" as a nickname as is, for example, Ethelred the Unready or Eric the Red.

Medieval titles, and spellings, are a bit wayward. And BTW they usually refer to the lands controlled by the nobleman.....John of Gaunt, or Richard of York, for example. (and "de" means "from", of course; is that any clearer?)

Yes McTag, I've got it clearer.
Still remained a bit confusion in my mind. If the Bruce refers to his family name, can we say "Robert the Bruce" means "Robert, from the Bruce family"? I am not very sure for it. In addition, it is obviously that "the Bruce" does not mean "the lands controlled by the Bruce family", or else, "Robert the Bruce" can be spelled as "Robert of the Bruce".
Sorry for possibly disturbing you.

Looked this up:

"Earl of Carrick, Robert Bruce was born at Turnberry Castle, Ayrshire, in 1274, of both Norman and Celtic ancestry. Two years before his birth, Edward Plantagenet had become King Edward I of England. The ruthlessness of Edward, who earned the title "the Hammer of the Scots" brought forth the greatness of Bruce whose astonishing victory at Bannockburn in 1314 over the much larger and better-equipped forces of Edward II ensured Scottish freedom from control by the hated English.

This struggle for control of Scotland began when Alexander III died in 1286, leaving as heir his grandchild Margaret, the infant daughter of the King of Norway. English King Edward, with his eye on the complete subjugation of his northern neighbors, suggested that Margaret should marry his son, a desire consummated at a treaty signed and sealed at Birgham. Under the terms, Scotland was to remain a separate and independent kingdom, -- "separate, distinct and free in itself without subjection from the realm of England" --though Edward wished to keep English garrisons in a number of Scottish castles. On her way to Scotland, somewhere in the Orkneys, the young Norwegian princess died, unable to enjoy the consignment of sweetmeats and raisins sent by the English King. The succession was now open to many claimants, the strongest of whom were John Balliol and Robert Bruce."

So, his family name was Bruce. Which is derived, as I stated, from a Norman French name.
It is not uncommon for a nickname like "the McGregor" or "the McCrimmon" to be given to a notable personage of a particular family, and it may be helpful to think of "the Bruce" in that way.

You've done yeoman work in explaining this, McTag. Well done! Let he who has eyes see, and he who has ears hear...

That is what makes this forum better and better over time. Indeed good job, McTag!
And thanks.