# William Wallace: Hero or Fool?



## LochNessLizard

Few contemporary sources for information about Wallace's early life exist, and much reliance is placed on the account of Blind Harry, written around 1470, roughly two centuries after Wallace's birth. We are told that he was born in Ayrshire, his father was Sir Malcolm Wallace of Riccarton, and that he had two brothers, Malcolm and John.


He received his education from two uncles who were priests, and therefore became well-educated by the standards of the time, knowing both French and Latin. Blind Harry makes no mention of his ever having left the country, or having any military experience before 1297. A record from August, 1296 makes reference to 'a thief, one William le Waleys' in Perth.

Scotland in Wallace's time
Contrary to popular belief, John Balliol had a right to the Scottish throne. However, it was deemed necessary for an independent arbitrator to be invited to Scotland, so that no accusations of bias would be levelled at the arbitrator. Much to their folly, the Scots invited Edward I of England to decide the succession of the Scots throne. Instead of coming as an independent arbitrator, he arrived at the Anglo-Scottish border with a large army and announced he was an overlord coming to solve a dispute in a vassal state, forcing each potential king to pay homage to him. After hearing every claim, Edward picked John Balliol to be king over what he described as the vassal state of Scotland. In March of 1296, Balliol renounced his homage to Edward, and by the end of the month Edward had stormed Berwick-upon-Tweed, sacking the border town with much bloodshed. In April, he defeated the Scots at the Battle of Dunbar (1296) in Lothian, and by July, Balliol had been forced to abdicate at Kincardine Castle. Edward went to Berwick in August to receive formal homage from some 2,000 Scottish leaders, having previously removed the Stone of Destiny from Scone Palace, seat of Scottish kings. Scotland was now effectively under English rule.

Wallace's exploits begin
The following year, 1297, was to see the start of Wallace's rise to prominence. According to local Ayrshire legend, Wallace was challenged by two English soldiers over fish he had caught. The argument escalated into a full-scale fight, with the result that Wallace killed the soldiers. A warrant for his arrest was issued shortly thereafter. Whether this is true or not, it is clear that Wallace had a long-standing hatred of the English, partially based on his father's death at their hands in 1291. He further avenged his father's death by winning battles at Loudoun Hill (near Darvel, Ayrshire) and Ayr. By May he was fighting with Sir William Douglas in Scone, routing the English justiciar, William Ormsby. Supporters of the growing popular revolt suffered a major blow when Scottish nobles agreed to terms with the English at Irvine in July, and in August, Wallace left his base in Selkirk forest to join Andrew de Moray's army at Stirling. Moray had started another rising, and their forces combined at Stirling, where they prepared to meet the English in battle.

The battle of Stirling Bridge
September 11, 1297, saw a decisive victory for Wallace and the Scots at Stirling Bridge. Despite being vastly outnumbered, the Scottish forces led by Andrew de Moray (a more prominent noble, being a first son) and with Wallace as their captain, routed the English army. The Earl of Surrey's professional army of 300 cavalry and 10,000 infantry met disaster as they crossed over to the north side of the river. The bridge was too narrow for many soldiers to cross at once (possibly as little as three men abreast), so while the English soldiers crossed, the Scots sat back and killed the English as quickly as they could cross. English soldiers started to retreat as others pushed forward and under the overwhelming weight, the bridge collapsed and many English soldiers drowned. Unbeknownst to the now chaotic English army, part of the Scots army had forded further up the river. With the English army split on either side of the river, the two Scots forces pressed both halves of the English army towards the river. It was an overwhelming victory for the Scots and a huge boost to the confidence of the Scottish army. Hugh Cressingham, Edward's treasurer in Scotland, was killed in the fighting.

Following the victory, Wallace was made a knight and Guardian of Scotland in March 1298. Unfortunately, de Moray was mortally wounded in the battle and died three months after it took place. Their partnership had proved successful but Wallace was now on his own, with bigger battles still to face.

The battle of Falkirk (1298)
A year later, however, the tables were to be turned. On June 25, 1298, the English had invaded Scotland at Roxburgh. They plundered Lothian and regained some castles, but had failed to bring Wallace to combat. The Scots had adopted a 'scorched-earth' policy, and English suppliers' mistakes had left morale and food low, but Edward's search for Wallace would end at Falkirk.

Wallace had arranged his spearmen in four 'schiltrons' – circular, hedgehog formations surrounded by a defensive wall of wooden stakes. The English were to gain the upper hand, however, attacking first with cavalry, and wreaking havoc through the Scottish archers. The Scottish knights fled, and Edward's men began to attack the schiltrons. It is not clear whether the infantry throwing bolts, arrows and stones at the spearmen was the deciding factor, or a cavalry attack from the rear.

Either way, gaps in the schiltrons soon appeared, and the English exploited these to crush the remaining resistance. The Scots lost many men, but Wallace escaped, though his pride and military reputation were badly damaged.

By September, 1298, Wallace had decided to resign his guardianship to Robert Bruce, Earl of Carrick, and John Comyn of Badenoch, ex-King John Balliol's brother-in-law. Bruce became reconciled with Edward in 1302, while Wallace spurned such moves towards peace. He spent some time in France on a presumed diplomatic mission.

Wallace's capture and execution
Sir William managed to evade capture by the English until May 1305, when Sir John de Menteith, a Scottish knight loyal to Edward, captured him near Glasgow. After a show trial, the English authorities had him horribly executed on August 23, 1305, at Smithfield, London in the traditional manner for a traitor. He was hanged, then drawn and quartered, and his head placed on a spike in London Bridge. The English gowernment displayed his limbs in a grisly fashion separately in Newcastle, Berwick, Edinburgh, and Perth.

The plaque in the photograph above stands in a wall of St Bartholomew's Hospital near the site of Wallace's execution at Smithfield. Scottish patriots and other interested people frequently visit the site, and flowers frequently appear there.

The 1995 motion picture, Braveheart, offers a very loose account of William Wallace's life.

LNL


----------



## Brian G Turner

You mention "English Army" and "English soldiers", but I'm very much under the impression these were, in majority, Scottish soliders in a Scottish army under English direction.

Like much of Scotland battles with the "English", it was actually a battle between Scottish lords, who differed as to their loyalties - ie, to the throne, or to an uprishing/pretender.


----------



## The Ace

A hero.  End of.


----------



## reiver33

Reading the above account of his life and times - what there would lead anyone to describe him as a fool?


----------



## Peter Graham

I'd say he was neither hero nor fool.

As Brian implies, it is all too easy to re-invent our history. _Braveheart _is a fine example, which takes one episode from the centuries old, pan-European dynastic struggle and re-invents it as a stirring tale of the little man (literally as well as metaphorically given the choice of actor...) facing insurmountable odds in the name of freedom, goodness and all that is holy.

The reality is rather different. Wallace was a minor noble - so he's one of a small caste of (probably) French-speaking oligarchs who were effectively running both England and Scotland as outliers of a greater Angevin/Plantaganet empire. Edward Longshanks and his son didn't consider themselves to be Englishman and I doubt whether Wallace considered himself to be a Scotsman. And even if he did, notions of national pride and self-determination would not have featured on his radar. It was all about power. At root, Wallace was no better and no worse than Edward and was pursuing substantially the same ends - power and authority over others. Both sides killed, burned, pillaged and looted and both were led by people whom today would be regarded as pretty nasty bits of work. 

But if it's difficult to see him as a hero, it would be grossly unfair to term him a fool. He has to be seen in his own context - a man of his time. And he undoubtedly has a prominent place in the mythology of modern Scotland. So, in that context, he can be imbued with the _characteristics_ of heroism, not because he actually displayed them, but because he fills that role in the story of a proud and splendid nation. And there is nothing much wrong with that (every nation does the same thing) - provided one realises that myth and history are not quite the same thing. 

Regards,

Peter


----------



## River Boy

I said:


> You mention "English Army" and "English soldiers", but I'm very much under the impression these were, in majority, Scottish soliders in a Scottish army under English direction.
> 
> Like much of Scotland battles with the "English", it was actually a battle between Scottish lords, who differed as to their loyalties - ie, to the throne, or to an uprishing/pretender.


 
That seems to have been the case with the Battle of Culloden, but I've never heard it about Edward I's armies, who were even full with Welsh and Irish. Certainly when The Bruce eventually defeated Edward II it was done after war with the English had been avoided in favour of conquering the divisions in Scotland so the nation could stand as one against the English when it did occurr at Bannockburn. Your post seems to suggest that England and Scotland have never really been at war.

I personally think that Wallace was a hero, despite the romanticising of him. It's very hard to see him as a political figure in any way, especially as he gave up the Guardianship of Scotland upon realising he wasn't strong enough to defeat Longshanks. I don't think the joint Guardianship of Bruce and Comyn was asked for as they were bitter opponents and Bruce ended up murdering Comyn.


----------



## Foxbat

I think - given the right (or wrong) amount of information, we could pigeon hole any historical character as hero or villain. The English/Scottish relationship has always been quite complicated and intertwined throughout history. 

The fact that he gave up the guardianship (to me) shows a level of political intelligence and pragmatism. I think that he was probably a person worth knowing. But this in itself does not define him as being in either camp.

Personally, I regard Wallace neither as hero or villain but as a very important historical character who - during his time upon the Earth - did much to shape the futures of both Scotland and England.


----------



## Brian G Turner

River Boy said:


> Your post seems to suggest that England and Scotland have never really been at war.



No, it's more the romantic point I was addressing, which sees Wallce leading an army of Scotsmen against an army of Englishmen, when really it was Scotsmen vs Scotsmen, their loyalties divided.

Good comment, btw, Peter Graham.


----------



## River Boy

I said:


> No, it's more the romantic point I was addressing, which sees Wallce leading an army of Scotsmen against an army of Englishmen, when really it was Scotsmen vs Scotsmen, their loyalties divided.
> 
> Good comment, btw, Peter Graham.


 
What sources say there were more Scotsmen than Englishmen on Edward's forces?


----------



## Brian G Turner

Even the film Braveheart made the point that Wallace was fighting against other Scottish lords.


----------



## Peter Graham

River Boy said:


> What sources say there were more Scotsmen than Englishmen on Edward's forces?


 
'Twas ever thus.  For most of its history, the Scottish monarchy was relatively weak.  It relied heavily on the support of the nobles, many of whom ran huge areas of the country as private fiefdoms.  The geography and political loyalties of much of Scotland (which was based around familial/tribal loyalty over loyalty to the body and person of the king) probably had much to do with the weakness of the Stuart kings.  It was a great shame that possibly the best Scottish king - James IV - died at Flodden.  Had he not, he may well have strengthened the Scottish monarchy.

In many ways, there are similarities to the political situation in modern day Pakistan, where enormous swathes of the country are effectively free of central control, or pay it little more than lip service.  The Highlands were always beyond the effective and direct reach of government from Holyrood and the Lowlands - especially the Anglo Scottish border - was every bit as bad.  Families like the Maxwells basically owned the border counties and spent far more of their time feuding and reiving than they did ensuring good governance.  The direct input of the Scottish crown into border affairs was all too often limited to judicial raids, in which the monarch and his forces would sweep across the countryside, administering jeddart justice to the local villains (the tale of Black Jock Armstrong is a nice case in point), before going home again.

So, when it came to English inteference, it was very easy to stir up simmering resentments and feuds.  It was also difficult for medieval monarchs to maintain an army in the field - much easier to rely on local forces, be they the vassals of sympathetic Scottish lords, or levies from the English or Scottish border counties who, used to living and dying by thieving and raiding, were a ready supply of excellent irregular, light troops.

There probably are no troop lists showing exactly where every soldier on each side came from.  But we know more about the lords who fought on each side - and when they fought, they turned out with thier vassals and retainers.  

Regards,

Peter


----------



## River Boy

But Flodden wasn't during Edward I's reign. Later conflicts yes, but all I've read on the battles of Stirling Bridge, Falkirk and Bannockburn suggest a massive English presence and that, though the loyalty of Scottish nobles was an issue for Wallace and The Bruce, it was mainly getting them to turn up that was the problem as opposed to having to fight against them.


----------



## Peter Graham

> Later conflicts yes, but all I've read on the battles of Stirling Bridge, Falkirk and Bannockburn suggest a massive English presence


 
I'm no expert on Wallace's battles, but I'm aware that the Scottish Wars of Independence were largely sparked by internal dissent in Scotland about who should be king. Perhaps unwisely, Longshanks was asked to intervene and he decided that Sir John Baliol was the man (he thought he could dangle Baliol on a string, for one thing). Baliol had supporters in Scotland as well as enemies, and although later history has attempted to paint the wars as being all the English on one side and all the Scots on the other, this simply isn't how it worked in practice.

You mention Bannockburn, which is a good example. The Bruce came from a Norman family who held enormous estates in both England and Scotland - I seem to recall (although I might be wrong) that his family held more land in Yorkshire than they did anywhere else. The name is actually De Brus, which tells you everything you need to know about the origins of the family.

Edward II was having a bad time of it down here. He didn't have his father's presence or authority and was not really a martial man, which was always a drawback for any medieval king. The Bruce naturally took advantage of English weakness and besieged Stirling. Although Edward was able to calm his realm for long enough to put an army in the field, that army had a significant Scottish element - the son of the Red Comyn fought for the English, as did the powerful Earl of Angus and some of the clans. The Bruce was no more universally popular with his countrymen than Edward was with his - some of the major "English" (a.k.a Norman and about as English as the chopstick) nobles failed to back their king.

But the grunts in each army (the levies with their scythes and longbows) _were_ countrymen - English or Scottish peasants dragged into the war by their mail-clad, French speaking feudal lords. The English peasant was having a hard time of it at home and almost certainly did not include undying love for his liege lord in his own notion of what it meant to be English. Basically, he was a second class citizen in his own country and he knew it. You didn't join the army because you saw a spirited recruitment poster in the ale house exhorting you to stand up for Olde Englande against the pernicious Scot - you were there because the jug eared maniac who virtually owned you had decided that his career at court would be appropriately advanced by allowing you to face off against his Scottish opposite number several hundred miles away.

Regards,

Peter


----------



## River Boy

That doesn't really explain how English forces in those battles always significantly outnumbered the Scots, which seems to me representative of the different sized populations and available soldiery.

It would seem that Edward II had a less secure rule than his father, so his army for Bannockburn was taken from far and wide (I think I read there was a famous Middle East warrior found on the battlefield). But Edward I's armies, which he led to commit atrocities like that of Berwick, couldn't have been mostly Scot, accept perhaps from disputed border territories.

You're completely right about the Norman influences, both sides' nobles would have been speaking French.


----------



## Peter Graham

> That doesn't really explain how English forces in those battles always significantly outnumbered the Scots,


 
They didn't - not always. You might be talking specifically about Wallace's battles (which I accept I know little about), but there were plenty of battles where the Scots (or those fighting under the Scottish banner) outnumbered the English (or those fighting under the English banner) - Solway Moss springs to mind. Basically, the invading army (whether they were heading north or south) would usually have the advantage of numbers.





> It would seem that Edward II had a less secure rule than his father, so his army for Bannockburn was taken from far and wide


 
That's a bit of a non-sequitur. The weaker the king, the smaller the army he (or she) can put into the field. Both England and Scotland had to rely on the nobles to provide the bulk of the manpower. But for various reasons - historical, geographical, religious and political - the kings of England often found that rather easier than their Scottish counterparts. 



> But Edward I's armies, which he led to commit atrocities like that of Berwick, couldn't have been mostly Scot, accept perhaps from disputed border territories.


 
Alas! Atrocities happened as a matter of course - plunder and looting was seen as part of the reward and sometimes towns were surrendered purely on terms that there would be no sack. And there isn't much evidence that people minded despoiling their own, especially on the border - Scottish rieving clans raided other Scots as zealously as they raided the English and vice versa. A soft target was preferable to a nationalistic one.

But you might be right in Wallace's case.  No-one is saying that in every case, the English armies had more Scottish soldiers than English ones.  I can't speak for others, but the only point I seek to make is that to see these battles as clear-cut, patriotic struggles for the self detemination of an oppressed people is an acceptance of an (admittedly compelling) myth, rather than an assessment of historical fact.

Regards,

Peter


----------



## Tirellan

Someone I know has written a tremendously authoratative book on Wallace, published by Canongate
William Wallace: Amazon.co.uk: Peter Reese: Books


----------



## Varangian

Falkirk is described here a little incorrectly. The schiltrons were in fact square, not circular, and bearing in mind that the Welsh had recently been defeated, the 'English' army was full of Welsh bowmen, who, in Falkirk, were put to devastating use. All four schiltrons (there were four large Scottish schilstrons in the battle) came under very heavy arrow fire which decimated the Scottish ranks before the cavalry and infantry closed with the Scottish.

However, I may be biased, but I view Wallace as a hero who stood up for that in which he believed and because of he and the likes of him (such as The Bruce, who was a bit wayward in the beginning, but eventually led the army which destroyed the English army in 1314 ad at Bannockburn) Scotland enjoyed relative peace up until the Jacobites.


----------



## Peter Graham

> However, I may be biased, but I view Wallace as a hero who stood up for that in which he believed and because of he and the likes of him (such as The Bruce, who was a bit wayward in the beginning, but eventually led the army which destroyed the English army in 1314 ad at Bannockburn)


 
Might I ask whether you think this because you are attracted by the Hollywood-esque myth of Wallace as a humble Scottish hero with a blue face fighting the wicked English oppressors, or because you have studied the period a bit and have a historically sound theory about his motivations?  If the latter - let's hear it!  If the former, then perhaps you are a little biased.  As I said earlier, Wallace and Bruce were both effectively Norman French aristocrats.  Braveheart is, to my mind, a waste of celluloid, but there's no doubting that it tapped into a strong myth about Scottish nationhood which far too many folk accept uncritically as being accurate.



> Scotland enjoyed relative peace up until the Jacobites.


 
"Relative" is the key word here.  Scotland suffered two of her biggest military defeats in this period of relative peace - Flodden and Solway Moss - and throughout, the border was in a state of perpetual and endemic violence which occasionally erupted into full blown war.  The Stuarts were endlessly hampered by rebellious and unruly Highlanders, rebellious and unruly borderers and by their own staggering ineptitude.  All of this was made worse by endless French interference in Scottish affairs and the fact that like it or not, both England and Scotland were all too often pawns in a game being played by people who were neither English nor Scottish.

Regards,

Peter


----------



## The Ace

There was constant border warfare during the Bruce/Stewart dynasties, probably part of the explanation of Scotland's poverty.

I _have _studied the history of the period, and see Wallace as a hero, ably succeeded by Robert I and a gradual decline during the reigns of David II and the Stewarts.

Wallace's murder galvanised Bruce into seizing the throne, crushing internal opposition and giving his heirs a strong, united Scotland, which they proceeded to p*ss away.

Wallace lost at Falkirk because the Scottish nobility ( among the finest light cavalry in Europe) deserted him, nobody dared to treat Bruce the same way.

Sir William Wallace was a hero and a patriot, deserted by a spineless bunch who gave him power but cr*pped themselves every time he tried to exercise it in case it offended an enemy they hadn't the guts to face.


----------



## Abernovo

The Ace said:


> Sir William Wallace was a hero and a patriot, deserted by a spineless bunch who gave him power but cr*pped themselves every time he tried to exercise it in case it offended an enemy they hadn't the guts to face.



Couldn't agree more. A hero and a patriot. Maybe I'm biased, having walked past his statue in Aberdeen so many times, but I've also read my history. He galvanised the resistance to Edward's domination at a time when most of the senior nobles were weak, interested only in their own petty rivalries and scrabbling for scraps from the master's table.

As to 'execution' for treason, as he was recorded as saying at the time, he swore no oath to the English crown, so could not act treasonously against it.


----------



## paranoid marvin

Personally I think that Wallace was seen as a threat both sides of the border. He was a bit of a loose cannon , with neither side knowing what he would do next. Akthough he was someone who could galvanise the people, what was needed was someone to galvanise those who led them - which is what The Bruce did.


----------



## The Ace

You can't _be_ a traitor to a foreign government.  Wallace's death was murder, there was treachery involved, but not on his part.

The Scottish nobility saw him as a threat to their power and the English saw him as a terrorist.  Funny, a few centuries later, the UK government armed, trained and funded similar terrorist organisations all over Europe.

They fought an army of occupation, were tortured and murdered if captured, and are now seen as heroes of WW2.

Men like Wallace fought the Germans in, France, Norway, Belgium etc, and are now seen as the heroes they are.


----------



## svalbard

I sort of agree with Paranoid Marvin. From all that I have read about the man he never lacked for courage, but was found wanting on the leadership, tactical and strategic side of things. The death of De Moray was a massive blow to him. 

The name is also interesting as 'Wallace' could be an indication of where his family came from. It could mean 'Welshman' and tie in with his family arriving in Scotland as part of Norman lord's household?

Strip away all the rhetoric and myths and what you might find is a young thug on the make who struck it lucky at first, but then ran out of that luck as events caught up with him. I use the term 'thug' because William Wallace was not adverse to the odd bit of murder himself and most of these so called 'heroes' of yore would be considered physcopaths in today's terms.


----------



## paranoid marvin

svalbard said:


> I sort of agree with Paranoid Marvin. From all that I have read about the man he never lacked for courage, but was found wanting on the leadership, tactical and strategic side of things. The death of De Moray was a massive blow to him.
> 
> The name is also interesting as 'Wallace' could be an indication of where his family came from. It could mean 'Welshman' and tie in with his family arriving in Scotland as part of Norman lord's household?
> 
> Strip away all the rhetoric and myths and what you might find is a young thug on the make who struck it lucky at first, but then ran out of that luck as events caught up with him. I use the term 'thug' because William Wallace was not adverse to the odd bit of murder himself and most of these so called 'heroes' of yore would be considered physcopaths in today's terms.


 

'A man of his time' is the phrase most commonly used. Considering the number of wars and violent actions in the world today , 500 years from now we (or at least our leaders) may be viewed as psychopaths by their standards; then again they probably won't be far from the truth in many cases.


----------



## The Ace

Any National Hero's probably a bit of a psychopath, would you say that about De Gaulle to a Frenchman ?

And yes, Wallace does mean Welsh, but there've been Wallaces (it's quite a common name) in Scotland since long before the  Norman Conquest.

As to seizing his chance, Robert Bruce (the future King) knighted him because he was the only candidate the nobility could agree on for the guardianship (Balliol was in an English prison at the time and the throne was vacant).

Those same nobility then abandoned his army at Falkirk and sold him to the enemy.  That was treason, fighting a foreign army which has invaded your country is patriotism.


----------



## paranoid marvin

The Ace said:


> Any National Hero's probably a bit of a psychopath, would you say that about De Gaulle to a Frenchman ?
> 
> And yes, Wallace does mean Welsh, but there've been Wallaces (it's quite a common name) in Scotland since long before the Norman Conquest.
> 
> As to seizing his chance, Robert Bruce (the future King) knighted him because he was the only candidate the nobility could agree on for the guardianship (Balliol was in an English prison at the time and the throne was vacant).
> 
> Those same nobility then abandoned his army at Falkirk and sold him to the enemy. That was treason, fighting a foreign army which has invaded your country is patriotism.


 

What I meant was that we may be seen as barbaric by future generations, but by our own standards we see ourselves as humane. We may be seen as not much different than neanderthals because of our penchant to kill others for material gain, to eat the flesh of animals, and willfully damage our own bodies due to drinking and smoking - would we see that as barbaric? No. But might future generations who have done away with war, have learned to live in harmony with nature and with the other creatures that inhabit the Earth? 

Like I said , the way that we are regarded by people in 1000 years time may be entirely different to how we view ourselves now. The world in which William Wallace lived is entirely different to our own , and it is unfair to judge him by our standards. Like I said , he was a man of his time.


----------



## Varangian

I completely agree with The Ace.

I am very interested in William Wallace and always have been, not because of Hollywood but because of the books that I have read on the subject, which is almost laughable as there are so many books surrounding the topic of Wallace, but all we really have to go on is a poem written well after Wallace's death.

I also disagree with the comment that if Wallace were alive today he would be viewed as a psycopath. Psycopaths (or sociopaths are they are now known) injure or kill without reason (although I'm sure they think they have well substantiated reasons in their own head).

Wallace, from what little we know of the man, had a great passion and burning patriotism for his country and he fought as a result of that motivation. He fought and killed to protect his country from a foreign power, so he had great courage (considering the odds with which he was faced).

_Ben_ Roberts-Smith is a good example of a Wallace like person in today's society. If you've ever heard Ben speak he is confident, calm, well spoken, logical and his thought process is obviously cohesive.

But, if you take a step back and read about why he was awarded the Victoria Cross, some of our more sensitive brethren may be forgiven for thinking of him as a psycopath. 

Pinned down by a Taliban heavy machine gun, Ben's section was under very heavy, sustained fire and he knew that if something was not done quickly then his section would begin taking casualties. So he moved away from his men, deliberately exposed himself to the machine gun, which swivelled to target him and thus gave his men time to lay down covering fire on the machine gun. 

Ben then sprinted forward to outflank the gun emplacement, came face to face with a Taliban fighter, placed a strategic hole in the Taliban's face and moved on. He was able to outflank the gun and killed all of the Taliban in the machine gun emplacement single handedly.

Talking to someone who was there on the day (and who shall remain nameless) there was an incident that was not discussed to the general media. Just prior to outflanking and taking out the gun emplacement, Ben experienced enemy fire from behind him (which missed). The bloke I talked to shot the Taliban fighter who had fire, but another enemy ran out and jumped onto Ben's back (this bit was not discussed). The bloke held his fire because he knew if he shot the Taliban fighter there was a very good chance the bullet would penetrate into Ben as well. Ben flung the enemy from his back "like an insect" was the description, stomped on his throat and blew his brains out. 

Psycopath? Sounds like it doesn't it? But he's not, he's just a normal bloke (who is very highly trained, highly motivated) who has the courage to go out and face his enemy.

Not so different from Wallace.

And the other comment about people 1, 000 years from now viewing us as psycopaths? I disagree with that also. 1, 000 years ago the Vikings were gallavanting around former USSR and UK territory, 1, 000 years before that the Romans were gallavanting around half of the northern hemisphere. In fact the small burial of homo sapien bones found in Africa and dated a couple of million years ago all show evidence of dying as a result of violent, traumatic injury. We are a war-like species, and in 1, 000 years we'll just be killing each other in far more efficient, sophisticated ways (if we make it that far without destroying ourselves first that is).


----------



## J-WO

The Ace said:


> Any National Hero's probably a bit of a psychopath



Makes you wish there was a cure for nations, really.


----------



## paranoid marvin

Do we not think of ourselves as more civilised because we don't put criminals to death as a form of entertainment? Or because we don't jump in boats and pillage,rape and murder neighbouring countries?

We may always be always be a warlike people (what a depressing thought - is there really no redemption for us?) but at least (in the majority of cases) it is kept in restraint the majority of the time.


----------



## The Ace

Wallace may well have been perfectly restrained if a foreign power hadn't invaded his country and murdered his wife.


----------



## svalbard

The Ace said:


> Any National Hero's probably a bit of a psychopath, would you say that about De Gaulle to a Frenchman ?
> 
> And yes, Wallace does mean Welsh, but there've been Wallaces (it's quite a common name) in Scotland since long before the  Norman Conquest.
> 
> As to seizing his chance, Robert Bruce (the future King) knighted him because he was the only candidate the nobility could agree on for the guardianship (Balliol was in an English prison at the time and the throne was vacant).
> 
> Those same nobility then abandoned his army at Falkirk and sold him to the enemy.  That was treason, fighting a foreign army which has invaded your country is patriotism.



To lump all the nobility into the same bracket is misleading though. A number of landed knights fought and died with Wallace at Stirling and Falkirk. One abandoned him at Falkirk, (John Comyn I think) and he was finally betrayed by a Stewart. It should be noted that Wallace also fled from the battle.

The problem for a lot of these lords is that they owned lands in both Scotland and England. Wallace was a defeated man after Falkirk(which was not decisive by any standards). Edward's army was not in any fit state to take advantage of the victory. Wallace could, if he had shown true leadership qualities have continued the resistance as Guardian. But he resigned. Whereas Bruce in later years proved what could be achieved through perseverance, although he did face a lesser adversary in Edward II. 

Wallace was a great warrior. Did he deserve his fate? No. It was a cruel end for a brave man. 


The Taliban story has no bearing on Wallace's character. We have no way of knowing if Wallace was a clam, soft spoken, logical person with a cohesive thought process. We can only surmise, but all indications lead to a man who was quick to anger. His first actions that lead to public attention is an act of murder.


----------



## The Ace

Or resistance.


----------



## svalbard

That could be true. We can never be certain though.


----------



## Peter Graham

The Ace said:


> Or resistance.


 
Resistance to whom? The perfidious Englishman or just another sept of murderous Norman robber barons who, at that time, had England in their hand and were looking to extend their influence still further?

This isn't a noble, patriotic struggle of Englishman v Scotsman and no amount of historical reinvention or misplaced, dewy-eyed nationalism will make it so. This is about a wider European dynastic struggle, which in turn was just one of an endless series of dynastic struggles by land and power hungry men with armed thugs at their back. That, I am afraid, is a large part of the history of both Scotland and England. 

Incidentally, on the Welsh connection in the Wallis name - don't forget that until the 11th century, a great chunk of Scotland (Glasgow down to the border and thence beyond into the north west) was Welsh. 

Let us get away shoehorning historical figures into roles we wish them to play in our lives and instead try to look as coldly and academically as possible about what they did, why they did it and what conclusions we can draw. 

Regards,

Peter


----------



## RJM Corbet

paranoid marvin said:


> Do we not think of ourselves as more civilised because we don't put criminals to death as a form of entertainment? Or because we don't jump in boats and pillage,rape and murder neighbouring countries?
> 
> We may always be always be a warlike people (what a depressing thought - is there really no redemption for us?) but at least (in the majority of cases) it is kept in restraint the majority of the time.



As everyone knows, the guillotine was at the time a merciful replacement for being hanged drawn and quartered.

Apparently the Mosaical Biblical 'eye for an eye' injunction, was as in: not two eyes, or death, for an eye.

So if we measure civilized advancement by how we, treat criminals, the old, the sick and so on, we do get more civilized as a society, though not always perhaps, as individuals. There are office psycopaths, home psycopaths, killers of spirit and peace of mind.

War can obvioulsy be offensive or defensive. Whatever else human beings would like to be, by the lowest common denominator we are still animals, the most intelligent of the apes, with all the territorial instincts that animals are given by nature in order to ensure the survival, not of the individual, but of the species, or tribe, or family, etc.

It's difficult to imagine that ever changing ...?


----------



## Peter Graham

As an addendum to my earlier post, I have checked out my history books and see that the Wallaces originally came to Scotland from Shropshire, where they were part of Walter (?) FitzAlan's network of cronies on the Welsh border. 

FitzAlan was invited north by King David of Scotland, no doubt as part of the ongoing attempts to impose a feudal system north of the border. The Wallaces tagged along in the hope that they would be suitably rewarded by their patron. Which they were.

Regards,

Peter


----------



## Dave

River Boy said:


> What sources say there were more Scotsmen than Englishmen on Edward's forces?


I know little about this particular conflict, but there was no English Army until Cromwell's New Model Army. You had mercenaries, who were fighting for cash rather than for King and country. Their allegiance was only to the particular Lord that was paying them, and it stands to reason that they would be recruited locally, or as locally as possible. We forget how vast the distances were in those days because today we can make a weeks journey in a matter of hours.


----------



## AnyaKimlin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3g61xASD-24

I couldn't resist it.


----------



## Parson

Perhaps you should have.


----------



## AnyaKimlin

Parson said:


> Perhaps you should have.



LOL I should have I went from that to Boudicca, to Spartan Highschool Musical, to Dick Turpin, to George IV solo career, to Cleopatra before I knew it an hour's writing time had been ruined


----------



## The Ace

Dave said:


> I know little about this particular conflict, but there was no English Army until Cromwell's New Model Army. You had mercenaries, who were fighting for cash rather than for King and country. Their allegiance was only to the particular Lord that was paying them, and it stands to reason that they would be recruited locally, or as locally as possible. We forget how vast the distances were in those days because today we can make a weeks journey in a matter of hours.




The King'd raise an army at need by calling on his vassals.  Medieval armies had little in common with modern ones, but they _were _made up of men summoned by the king.  There were mercenary companies, of course, but kings found patriotism cheaper.

There were Scots in the English army at Stirling Bridge (including the future Robert I) who either owned land in England, saw an eye for the main chance, or just didn't support Wallace.


Medieval armies dispersed at the end of the campaigning season or when the grub ran out, rather than being a permanent feature like modern ones, but they were organised by the nobility calling their own men to support them, often at the behest of a higher noble or the sovereign.


----------



## Peter Graham

Dave said:


> I know little about this particular conflict, but there was no English Army until Cromwell's New Model Army. You had mercenaries, who were fighting for cash rather than for King and country. Their allegiance was only to the particular Lord that was paying them,


 
Ace is quite right.  The whole point of feudalism was to ensure that there were clear lines of delegated responsibility - and so a reduced need for everything to be operated centrally. 

If England wanted to go to war with Scotland (or vice versa), the King would send out a call to his vassals to provide men and equipment.  The vassals sent out a call to their vassals and so on, until you have an army in the field.  It's a bit like bookies laying on bets - as Earl of Westmorland, I might have to provide so many men and so much gear.  But, in turn, I have my own vassals, so I get them to provide as much of it as possible.

This is one reason why a simplistic nationalist interpretation of the Anglo-Scottish wars falls down.  The King of England and Big Chunks Of France regarded the King of Scotland as his vassal.  Many Scottish nobles came from the same stock as their opposite numbers south of the border (in other words, they held their land from William I or from henchmen of William I who were trying to set up a feudal system in those parts of the mainland where the Normans had not penetrated in the immediate aftermath of 1066).  So, it wasn't that Edward wanted to rule Scotland directly - he just wanted to ensure that whoever did rule it would do so as his vassal.

This is why Scots are said to have fought on the "English" side.  What this really means is that Edward raised an army from amongst his vassals, who could live or hold lands anywhere - including Scotland and France.  But because most of his vassals held land in England, it followed that the rank and file who they in turn would oblige to show up would be largely English.

Regards,

Peter


----------



## The Ace

And at the bottom, you'd have an English army composed of Englishmen (and Welsh), and a Scottish army of Scotsmen.

The Normans generally wiped out the Celtic or Saxon Nobility and replaced them.  There were never enough Normans to replace the population entirely.


----------



## paranoid marvin

I guess for most of the serfs who fought in these conflicts it didn't really matter whether the noble oppressing them spoke with Scottish, English or French accent; whatever the outcome of the battle (if they were lucky enough to survive), it would be back to trying to survive off the land whilst giving the majority of what you made to whoever was in charge.


----------



## Dave

Okay, but hypothetically speaking, wouldn't an army raised in Sussex, for example, have much higher overheads than one raised in say Roxburghshire? You'd need to feed both the men, and the horses to transport all their gear, for an awfully long time before they did any actual fighting. Or, was that never a problem - did an army on the move just confiscate whatever they needed without a question being raised?


----------



## The Ace

The king commanded that his army be supplied.  The nobility tended to make local arrangements as they passed through friendly territory.  In hostile territory, of course, soldiers just took what they wanted,


----------



## Peter Graham

Dave said:


> Okay, but hypothetically speaking, wouldn't an army raised in Sussex, for example, have much higher overheads than one raised in say Roxburghshire?


 
Absolutely right, Dave.  I don't know about the earlier Middle Ages, but later on, English armies heading for Scotland contained disproportionate numbers of men from the northern - and specifically the border - counties.  The small English army which defeated the Scots at Solway Moss was made up almost entirely of Cumberland men.

Scottish armies heading south also contained lots of Borderers.

This occasionally caused problems for the commanders of both sides.  The borderers were frequently related and/or at states of feud with one another and the records show that considerations of patriotism ranked well down the scale.  Both English and Scottish borderers were notoriously ready to change sides if it looked like they had picked the losing team. 

Regards,

Peter


----------



## Peter Graham

Hi Ace



> And at the bottom, you'd have an English army composed of Englishmen (and Welsh), and a Scottish army of Scotsmen.


 
Plus foreign mercenaries and levies from overseas territories.  Numerically, you might be right, but that isn't the point I'm making.  My issue is with seeing the wars of the Edwards, Wallace and De Brus as a simple, nationalist struggle between England and Scotland in which the noble Scots fight for FREEDOM from the hated English oppressors.  They were no such thing.  And, of course, those at the bottom rarely have much choice about where they are sent or what they have to do when they get there.




> There were never enough Normans to replace the population entirely.


 
There didn't need to be.  They just took over at the top. And there were enough of them to replace the previous English aristocracy (made up of a genetic soup of Angle, Saxon, Norseman and Welshman) and also the lowland Scottish aristocracy (made up of a genetic soup of Welshman, Angle, Norseman, Irishman and Pict).

Regards,

Peter


----------



## Brian G Turner

Peter Graham said:


> There didn't need to be.  They just took over at the top.



Which is reflected in our language - English words for animals tend to be Germanic in origin, while the food from these animals served to the lords tend to be French - a point that may or may not have been raised earlier in this thread but thought worth recounting on.


----------



## AnyaKimlin

I said:


> Which is reflected in our language - English words for animals tend to be Germanic in origin, while the food from these animals served to the lords tend to be French - a point that may or may not have been raised earlier in this thread but thought worth recounting on.



The Scots words I think are Germanic as well aren't they ?  Puddock, Todd, Brock, Maukin, Mowie, Baudrons etc  (I am sure in a cold desperate winter most of them ended up in the stew pot - especially given the Viking heritage in parts of Scotland) Which are probably what William Wallace would have used.

For that matter Malkin was the Lancastrian word for Hare, along with Brock and Todd (the obvious Badger and Fox) in Yorkshire.


----------



## Peter Graham

> The Scots words I think are Germanic as well aren't they ? Puddock, Todd, Brock, Maukin, Mowie, Baudrons etc


 
Scots is lovely on the ear, but it's a dialect of English rather than a language in its own right.  As such, the majority of the vocabulary is made up of English words, many of which are, as you rightly say, Germanic in origin.

There is considerable overlap with the dialects of northern England - many supposedly "Scottish" words (such as "bairn", "lass" and "ken") are also used south of the border.  




> Which are probably what William Wallace would have used.


 
He might've done.  But as a member of a Norman family who came over with the Conqueror and who still held land and power, I think he'd also have spoken French.

Regards,

Peter


----------



## AnyaKimlin

Peter Graham said:


> Scots is lovely on the ear, but it's a dialect of English rather than a language in its own right.  As such, the majority of the vocabulary is made up of English words, many of which are, as you rightly say, Germanic in origin.
> #r



That is disputed whether, because it contains its own dialects, it is actually a language.  Academics don't seem to agree whether it is a dialect or a language with similarities like Danish, Swedish, Norweigian etc  It is more a dialect of Middle English than one of Modern English.  Certainly a broad Doric speaker can produce sentences before a recognisable modern English word appears.

So little is known about William Wallace even his birthplace I seem to remember from history at school was under dispute.  I know my history teacher called him an interfering Frenchman, but his father was one of two men.  He may have had brothers.  He may or may not have descendants etc  All we actually know is he fought wars and then was hung, drawn and quartered.

We know a bit more about this character, and we might know more if Elgin/Moray records kept their archives in something more glamourous than shoeboxes is damp cellars:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Moray#Attack_on_Castle_Urquhart

One local legend is the castle was dismantled to prevent King Edward visiting lol It is now just a very small wall.


----------



## Peter Graham

> That is disputed whether, because it contains its own dialects, it is actually a language.


 
The dispute appears to have gathered pace in recent years.

I can fully accept that a dialect might get to the point that it is, to all intents and purposes, a separate language.  However, I'd argue that Scots never got to that point.  At heart, it is a dialect (or a collection of dialects) shared in no small measure with the dialects of northern England.  All have a hefty influx of West and North Germanic words.

Although there are differences between the various dialects, at root they are all variants of English and are (by and large) intelligible to other English speakers.  The north of England contains numerous dialects gathered under a broad aegis of Oop North Talk, yet no one would argue that Northern English is a separate language.  Both Scots and Northern English are convenient terms for what are effectively sub groups of dialects of the English language.




> Certainly a broad Doric speaker can produce sentences before a recognisable modern English word appears.


 
Really?  I'd love to hear one!

Cumbrians can do this too - the (in)famous "hasta sin a cuddy lowp a yett?" being the obvious example.




> We know a bit more about this character, and we might know more if Elgin/Moray records kept their archives in something more glamourous than shoeboxes is damp cellars:


 
Good point!

Regards,

Peter


----------



## AnyaKimlin

Peter Graham said:


> The dispute appears to have gathered pace in recent years.
> 
> I can fully accept that a dialect might get to the point that it is, to all intents and purposes, a separate language.  However, I'd argue that Scots never got to that point.  At heart, it is a dialect (or a collection of dialects) shared in no small measure with the dialects of northern England.  All have a hefty influx of West and North Germanic words.



It depends where you are in Scotland how it sounds and how heavy the Norse influence is.  Although it doesn't really matter either way - it is closer to Middle English though because it spent so much time being suppressed it was more important for it not to evolve.

It is referred to as the Scots Language in schools though and taught as such in some.

The biggest problem with Scottish history is the area I live in Morayshire for much of Scotland's history it was a major player (the Macbeth Witches were executed about 3 miles from where I live) - in someways Elgin was the second city.  Even in the 1800s its silver and goldsmiths were reknowned, it had early railway, and what is possibly the UKs first purpose built museum which is stocked full of riches some of which the British Museum doesn't have  These days its main town has a population of around 25,000 and that is 8,000 more than it was in the 1990s. 

Early records of the Cathedral were lost in a fire in late 13th Century. Then the Wolf of Badenoch burned the place in I think 1390 losing more records.  The reformation put paid to a lot more of them.

The records are in a shambolic state as I said some of the older records are in something along the lines of a shoebox and not together in an archive.

Basically what does survive of the areas records much is not properly catalogued.  Without it William Wallace and Scottish history is probably more of a mystery than it need be.

One interesting thought the first fire at the cathedral was about the time William Wallace would have been born - his birthplace and date has never been confirmed.


----------



## Dave

Peter Graham said:


> There is considerable overlap with the dialects of northern England - many supposedly "Scottish" words (such as "bairn", "lass" and "ken") are also used south of the border.


And I think you will find if you dig deeper that those words have a Viking or Northern European influence also:

Bairn: Swedish barn (“child”), Icelandic barn (“child”)

The Geordie "gannin hyem": German Heim, Swedish hem, Dutch heem and heim-. Not derived from Old Norse, as is sometimes assumed on the basis of Danish and Norwegian hjem.


----------

