Talk:Bruce campaign in Ireland

Incomplete Article

This article stops in 1315 and leaves out the critical phase of this war. Can someone please finish it?? Jdorney 17:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Tried to...Red Hurley (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

There is still nothing on the events between 1315 and 1318. What happened? Drutt (talk) 13:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Does this really merit a seperate article from Edward Bruce? It also needs a proper introduction. PatGallacher (talk) 10:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I beleive it does. It is not Edward Bruce. It is a war Edward Bruce took part in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen C Wells (talk • contribs) 17:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Title

I notice the title has been moved from "Bruce campaign in Ireland" to "Irish-Bruce Wars (1315-1318)". This war was a campaign by Edward Bruce against the English regime in Ireland. The new title is misleading because it implies that A) there was more than one war, and B) these "wars" were between Edward Bruce and the Irish.
Are there any reliable sources that use this title? ~Asarlaí 17:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• It should either be Bruce campaign in Ireland or Bruce invasion of Ireland. The former is perhaps more technically correct, but IMO the latter is a good deal more common, per WP:COMMONNAME. The edit summary for the move was "Name of the War", an unsupported assertion. The only hits on Google books and Google scholar for "Irish–Bruce Wars" are from Wikipedia scrapers. Even if "Irish–Bruce Wars" were the correct name, it should be moved rom Irish-Bruce Wars (1315-1318) to Irish–Bruce Wars per WP:ENDASH and WP:PRECISE. jnestorius^(talk) 11:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was No Consensus. The only reply to this proposal seems to misunderstand what the proposal is, but more importantly, this isn't an actual merge proposal. If content in Edward Bruce is indeed not notable to the article's subject and is already covered in another article, than that content can (and should) be boldly deleted. NukeofEarl (talk) 17:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

---

At the moment the biography article Edward Bruce overlaps substantially with the campaign article Irish-Bruce Wars (1315–1318). I propose that

• the section Edward Bruce#The invasion of Ireland should be condensed to a WP:SUMMARY, focusing on Edward Bruce himself, and
• the details of the the campaign, especially those less closely tied to the man, should be exclusively dealt with in the the campaign article.

The comment above from PatGallacher is still relevant:

Does this really merit a seperate article from Edward Bruce?

The two articles should be completely merged (I don't care at which title) in the event that it is felt that

• the man and the campaign are so closely intertwined they cannot be disentangled without large overlap;
• or there is nothing much to say about the man other than the campaign

Personally I don't think either condition applies, even though in the short term Edward Bruce will be quite short after the bulk of its longest section is condensed. jnestorius^(talk) 11:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I think that the war merits it's own article, as I stated in a previous comment.--Stephen C Wells (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Shared Gaelic Identity Politics

The article currently includes this unattributed quote; "They personally envisioned "a grand Gaelic alliance against England" between Scotland and Ireland, since both countries had a common heritage, language and culture." Pan-Gaelic identity did not emerge until the 19th century. Envisioning the Bruce brothers heading a grand Gaellic alliance is fanciful historical revisionism. Ideas around a shared heritage, language and culture are equally circumspect. Dál Riata would have been more mythology than history by this point and Scots Gaellic and Irish would not have been mutually intelligible with the exception of coastal regions as follows "Scottish Gaelic in Islay and Argyll is fairly similar to Irish. The extinct dialects of northeast Ulster, particularly Rathlin Island, were also close to Scottish Gaelic. " from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Scottish_Gaelic_and_Irish. More importantly the Bruce spoke Ynglys/Scots from Middle Northern English. Without today's national education to form a consistent shared historical narrative, identity politics would have been confined to loyalty to clan, kith and kin. More correctly, they would have seen this alliance as essentially an anti-Edward I alliance within the context of "The Great Cause"; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitors_for_the_Crown_of_Scotland — Preceding unsigned comment added by Remedia8 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with you. That aspect of the article never sat well with me. Not least as it is (as noted) uncited and unattributed. Unless there are other thoughts I agree that it should be tempered or removed. (Or at the very least tagged). Other thoughts welcome before any related action is taken. Guliolopez (talk) 16:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The article you cite only considers the contemporary state of the Scottish and Irish Gaelic languages in the mordern era. To suggest that "pan-Gaelic identity did not emerge until the 19th century" is a misconception. In the early 14th century, the two languages were considered by their speakers as being dialects of the same language, and in fact both used the same written standard, Classical Gaelic, as elaborated upon in that article. It was commonplace for clans in western parts of Scotland, and particularly in Galloway, Argyll and the Isles to send their noble children over to Ulster to be educated by the Irish nobility there, and certainly as late as the 18th century both languages were still considered to be differing forms of the one language both by Gaels and others writing about them, if contemporary commentary about Alasdair mac Mhaighstir Alasdair is to be believed. The quote from Bishop Forbes (over 400 years later, but still predating the 19th century Celtic Revival, to which you presumably first referred, by a century) provided in that article is striking in this regard:

He is a very smart, acute man, remarkably well skilled in the Erse, for he can both read and write the Irish language in its original character, a piece of knowledge almost quite lost in the Highlands of Scotland, there being exceedingly few that have any skills at all that way. For the Captain told me that he did not know any other person (old Clanranald excepted) that knew anything of the first tongue in its original character.... Several of the Captain's acquaintances have told me that he is by far the best Erse poet in Scotland, and that he has written many songs in the pure Irish.

Additionally, evidence in Scots suggests that non-Gael Scots were aware of the Highlanders' heritage, and considered them to be Irish. For example, the 15th century Scots language poem covering the period in question, The Wallace, consistently refers to the Highland Scottish nobility who spoke Gaelic as "Erse", and goes as far as referring to noblemen whose main holdings are in Argyll as "of Ireland". If anything, it would be much easier to argue from both Gaelic and Scots evidence that the differentiation of Gaelic identity into separate Scottish and Irish Gaelic identities only occurred in the mid-to-late 18th century with the translation of the Bible into Scottish Gaelic creating a separate written standard. However, I will conceed that for the average Gael, this shared ethnic and linguistic identity did not (and probably never did) translate into a shared political identity (as evidenced by the failure of Bruce's appeal to exactly this), as political allegience at the time would have been FAR more localised than it now is, and for most people would have meant simply loyalty to their immediate superior in a clan or feudal system. But to emphasise this fact ignores the fact that this occurred just as divisively WITHIN both Ireland and Scotland as between Irish and Scottish clans. Neither Ireland nor Scotland was a fully unified nation in the modern sense during this period, and indeed the Lord of the Isles retained de facto independence from the crown of Scotland almost into the 16th century. As far as historical narrative and identity politics goes, Gaels in both Ireland and Scotland would have certainly have felt a closer sense of kinship between each other than either would have with the Germanic Scots or English, as in the 13th century the clans transmitted their history orally, and the oral tradition provides a mythological descent for the Gaels reaching back as far as the Fianna and (post-Christianisation) to the Israelites in Egypt beyond that. This mythological geneology was commonly told on both sides of the sea. I'm not a historian, nor a particularly capable writer, so I probably lack the skill to update or improve the article or to source out references, but I just felt it was important that someone made these points before any decision was taken. 88.108.89.83 (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

---

Irish-Bruce Wars (1315–1318) → Bruce campaign in Ireland – This article was moved from the other title a year ago without discussion, there has been some opposition on the talk page, I propose we revert. The current title is a bad one for several reasons, since it implies several misconceptions: that it was a war between the Bruces and the Irish, when it was more complex, that there was more than one war during the 1315-18 period, and that there were other Irish-Bruce wars outside this period, both incorect. PatGallacher (talk) 23:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Support - as I sayd last time, the current name implies that ther was more than one war and that these wars wer between the Bruces and the Irish. ~Asarlaí 12:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Support. The current title is bizarre. Srnec (talk) 21:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Support, unusual and misleading title. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 10:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Legacy in Ireland

Amazing to see how this article totally overlooks or most likely intentionally ignores the fact Edward became hated by Hiberno-Norman and Gaelic Irish alike after his time in Ireland. Even the Irish annals bemoan him as a scourge upon them. Article has other flaws too but I suppose it helps support myth. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

You may be right, but why not try to improve the article then? PatGallacher (talk) 23:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Mobile editing does not lend well to lengthy additions so until I have access to my PC I can't at the moment otherwise I would have. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)