Talk:William Wallace

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the William Wallace article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] The Wallace

"20th century Nigel Tranter authored an intended fiction titled The Wallace, which is academically suggested more accurate than its literary predecessors, and was published in 1996. The most recent account of the life of William Wallace is the 1995 film, Braveheart, directed by Mel Gibson and written by Randall Wallace."

How is Braveheart the most recent if The Wallace was published in 1996? Either the date is wrong or something needs to be clarified.

"The Wallace" was first published in 1977 by Hodder and Stoughton.

What in the world is an "intended fiction"? Are we talking about a novel? Clarityfiend 03:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Fiction, you know, the opposite of non-fiction. As in not factual. Sandwiches99 01:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Knighthood

Just who exactly knighted wallace?--Duane 12:12, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

According to one account, this is not clear, but by a process of elimination it must have been 1 of 3 earls, Carrick (Bruce) and 2 others. PatGallacher 08:59, 2005 May 7 (UTC)
Whatever the truth of this story, it appears that Wallace had a long-standing hatred of the English, partially based on his father's death at their hands in 1291.

Can someone explain this? How did his father die, and why? Or did I somehow miss it? --Feitclub 20:08, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC) This is part of the Blind Harry fiction - Harry, and therefore 'Bravehaeart' refer to a war in the 1280s-1290s in which - or as a consequence of which - Wallace's father (called Malcolm for the purposes of Blind HArry and Braveheart) was executed, however this war never took place. In the 200 years preceding the Wars of Independence the Scot and the Englsih were alomst always at peace and generally on good terms. CsinC¬¬¬¬ I revised the section claiming that Robert the Bruce knighted Wallace. It's not certain, as explained above, just who actually did the knighting. I also removed the statement there concerning the legitimacy of that move. In reality the issue of whether or not Robert the Bruce was king had not come up yet and had nothing to do with the situation of Wallace being knighted and made Guardian. 66.156.107.108

[edit] William's Father

I’m not comfortable with the phrase “It seems certain he was the son of Sir Malcolm Wallace of Riccarton.” In fact this is a matter of considerable debate. The seal on a surviving letter of William’s, the Lubeck letter, (rediscovered in the 1990s and one of the few pieces of direct evidence about the man that survives) states, "William filius Alan" ( William son of Alan) William was the son of Alan Wallace who had lands in the Renfrew area. --Great Scott 19:55, April 12, 2005 (UTC) FItzalan clan..... The 'Clan' as we might think of it was a feature of Highland/Gaelic society, no medieval lord saw himself as a 'clan' leader, though they might well be the effective head of their family. Neither the Stewart, nor his family, would have described themselves as members of the 'Fitzalan' clan. The seal in question is perfectly clear about the paternity of WIlliam Wallace - he was the son (younger) of Alan Wallace.

Comments about the film Braveheart should be shifted to that article. PatGallacher 08:59, 2005 May 7 (UTC)


  • Being a direct descent of Alan Wallace I wish to make a comment or two. Alan or Allen is a common name in the Wallace clan even today. William and John are both very commonly used names within the Wallace clan. So there is a great chance that this seal is correct. It has been handed down through generations that there were several sons of which William, Malcolm (my ancestor), and John are a part. After doing years of research I'd say if there were any other sons their names could be George, Richard, Robert, James, and Thomas. These are commonly used names within the Wallace's today as well. If there were any daughters one might find names like Sarah, Charlotte, Amy, Mary, Nola, and Agnes. I'm merely sharing my many years of genealogy research which this family is a vital part. --Bookofsecrets 19:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The 'Wallace clan' is an invention of modern times - in the later middle ages the Wallace family were asscoiated with the Stewarts - of whom they were vassals - and with the Bruces. If 'bookofsecrets' is a direct descedant of Alan Wallace, he must - presumably - be descended from Malcolm, but does he have any provenance for that? CsinC¬¬¬¬

[edit] PatGallacher suggests large-scale revert

The recent large batch of changes by Adraeus are a dog's breakfast. While no Wikpedia article is sacred, an important and relatively stable article like this should not be subjected to large-scale edits without serious discussion. I feel a bit like reverting to the previous version. PatGallacher 23:56, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

The article may have been "stable" but it was incredibly flawed. I've corrected many factual and grammatical errors, added a lot of new information, and increased the size of the bibliography. Every edit I've made is supported by current, factual, and academic research. You can revert it if you like, but I'd accurately describe that as vandalism and seek administrative action against you. You really don't have a case so I recommend against such behavior; however, if you disagree with any section of the article as it stands now, you are encouraged to bring whatever section to discussion. Adraeus 00:50, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wallace's Seal Found in 1999

The 1999 rediscovery of William Wallace's seal further enshrouds Wallace's early history in mystery.

I would appreciate if someone could flesh out the details of rediscovering the seal. Thanks in advance. Ayeroxor 20:00, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

http://www.nas.gov.uk/education/ffa/lubeck.asp Adraeus 22:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Modern portrayal

Why is Braveheart not linked, with a comment "Computer and video games do not belong here or anywhere else in this article"? Ojw 21:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I just saw the article and was wondering the same thing, braveheart should probably be linked. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 00:40, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Braveheart is linked once. The problem was that editors were adding Braveheart links in every possible section as the film is somehow important to the history of William Wallace. Adraeus 22:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

In addition notable differences from Braveheart should be noted, probably in a subsection of their own. When you say William Wallace most people respond with, "oh that guy from braveheart?" I came here to find out how much of the movie was true and how much was hollywood.

[edit] Fictional portrayals

I've moved fiction to the bottom of the article, to bring this into line with other Wikipedia articles on historical topics. Also removed this;

Loved in America and Scotland, English audiences reacted with amusement at the film, although most praised the exciting battle sequences.

Yes I remember it well, the people of England stood smirking smugly outside cinemas, chortling at our poor undereducated Scottish and American cousins (sarcasm). This kind of comment is stupid and deosn't belong in an encyclopedia. Coyote-37 15:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scotland in Wallace's time

I have removed the comment that Scotland is 'effectively ruled by England'. This statement is completely outrageous. England does not 'rule' anywhere as:

  1. England is not a country in its own right, but is an administrative region of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, along with Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.
  2. As part of the British Parliament, Scotland actually has a disproportionate number of MPs in the House of Commons- a larger number than it should have considering its smaller population in relation to England.
  3. Any control over the Scottish parliament's powers- as referred to in the comment on devolution- is goverened by Westminster- the parliament of the United Kingdom, NOT England. Furthermore, if Scotland, or any other administrative region, wanted to become a separate entity from the United Kingdom, then it is perfectly feasible for a referrendum to be held within the region to decide its fate. It so happens that the majority of Scotland is reasonably happy with the current arrangement, presumably because the Scottish population have a say in what happens to their country- a complete contradiction to the 'rule by England' aforementioned.

Posted by J Swanson

Who cares? The article concerns a time before the United Kingdom even existed. Adraeus 22:
I think the "who cares?" comment is pretty flippant, 'effectively ruled by England' it is an outrageously erroneous quote for any "encyclopaedia". Although why the structure of the government in the UK is mentioned in an article about a 700 year old national hero maybe leaves it a bit open to "who cares" style criticism.
            1. who was the womman from the movie that warned wallace and gave birth to his child???????

[edit] Blind Harry

Blind Harry misread a line from an earlier poem about Robert the Bruce...

I think perhaps this should be rephrased. Flapdragon 00:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Why? Adraeus 22:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
The clue is in the word "blind". 62.252.132.31 00:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Blind Harry does not mention Wallace's departure from Scotland or that Wallace had combat experience prior to 1297.

This sentence appears well before any mention is made of Blind Harry, so the reader will not have a clue who he is. It is also in the "Family" section, and the sentence doesn't really have much to do with family.

I added a mention of Blind Harry in the summary of the article, so readers were prepared for later references to his work.

I have studied the unadulterated Blind Harry in excruciating detail. In reading these Wallace articles I had to cringe at mis-references to the work. Also, Blind Harry is much more detailed than is indicated here, so I had to add additional information to the articles. But in doing so I did not touch a previous editor's work. I did notice that there were several places in the articles that contained anti-Harry comments. I thought them inapropriate for an encylcopedia article and so I at least balanced those comments with equivalent comments to make the statement neutral as wiki recommends. And finally, if someone doesn't add a Blind Harry referral book source before I return home from this trip, then I will get my Blind Harry book and add it to the list.

Just a suggestion, but could someone think about splitting the Blind Harry stories into a separate article? The article's rather confusing, as it's too easy to read a section and miss that it's a Blind Harry story and not an actual fact.

I agree with the suggestion; the article does need to been split more effectively into what we actually know about William Wallace (the man of history) and what Blind Harry claims of him (the story that went on to become Braveheart). At the moment, these mix together and it makes for a very confusing article. --Jaygtee 11:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wallace with origins in Kyle

Another little-known controversy regarding Wallace's origins concerns his proposed residence in Kyle (Blackcraig, Strathclyde). Adraeus 22:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Tradition offers evidence that William Wallace was a Kyle resident:

Bot efter he made his dwelling in Comnok in his owen contrie, wheir he was borne, altho the Englishmen as yitt was masteris thaire. ... Then William Wallace keiping a royall howse in Comnok withe a garisone of michtie men.
— Alexander Brunton

The first extract refers to Wallace's return to his dwelling in Cumnock, after the murder of his wife by the Sheriff of Lanark. Brunton appears to suggest that Wallace was born at this dwelling. However, 'his owen contrie, wheir he was borne' is probably a general reference to the "contrie" of Kyle. The second extract reinforces Dr. Watson's observations that Brunton's story is similar to that of Blind Harry, with Wallace and his bodyguard returning to Wallace's crown lands at Cumnock, i.e. to Harry's Black Crag.When and how William Wallace came to have his home at the Blackcraig, New Cumnock is unknown. If Blackcraig is the crown property of his father's tenancy then the possibility of Wallace being born there cannot be dismissed, despite the list of assumptions growing, i.e. Alan was William's father; Alan was a crown tenant at Black Crag, Cumnock; Black Crag is Blackcraig; Blackcraig was crown land and not part of Earl of Dunbar's barony of Cumnock in the late 13th century. The last assumption suffers a 16th century setback. For at this time the four-merk land of Blackcraig along with a host of other properties in Glen Afton, was in the barony of Cumnock, and was held by the Dunbars of Cumnock and Mochrum, descendants of Patrick, Earl of Dunbar.

Following the re-discovery of William Wallace's seal in 1999, the Ayrshire case has began to gather momentum. The seal identifies Wallace as the son of Alan Wallace and not Malcolm and Alan Wallace appears in the Ragman Roll of 1296 as a 'crown tenant in Ayrshire'.Dr. Fiona Watson in 'A Report into Sir William Wallace's connections with Ayrshire' (March 1999), carries out a detailed reassessment of William Wallace's early years and concludes 'Sir William Wallace was a younger son of Alan Wallace, a crown tenant in Ayrshire'. On reading this report the renowned Wallace historian, Andrew Fisher, concedes 'If the Alan of the Ragman Roll was indeed the patriot's father, then the current argument in favour of an Ayrshire rather than a Renfrewshire origin for Wallace can be settled' . The historian John Major referred to Wallace - albeit more than 200 years after this death - as the "King of Kyle."

The name Wallace, or Wallensis, derives from the Welsh speaking people of Strathclyde (an area which included Kyle).

When Robert Bruce reestablished Scottish independence, in part through the great battle of Bannockburn in 1314, histories relate that great numbers of his soldiers were from nearby Ayr, Kyle being the third district to join his cause after Carrick and Galloway, Bruce’s native home. On 26th April 1315, Ayr saw the first meeting of a Scottish Parliament since the battle of Bannockburn in 1314. As part of the struggle, Thomas Bruce, who claimed close kinship with the royal house, organized with Robert the Steward (later Robert II) a rising in Kyle against the English in 1334. He received in recompense part of the Crown lands of Clackmannan.

Source: http://www.kylesociety.org/Kyle_NameHistory.htm


[edit] Wallace's Sword

The last section in the article talks about Wallace's sword being moved from Englad for a display in 2005. Is this the same discredited sword (ie: not Wallace's sword) mentioned previously in the article? Or is it the real sword that somehow escaped mentioned in the body of the article? Some clarification would probably be good. The various two-handed swords asociated with Wallace are much later artifacts; such weapons did not become popular until the nlater part of the 15th century. In Wallace's time fighting on horseback with lance and shield was the normal practice.

[edit] Was William Wallace a giant?

According to the Scotichronicon c. 1445, Wallace was a man "with the body of a giant." Though no height is given.

I've heard different claims made that he was over 6 feet 7 inches tall; partially based upon the fact that his "alleged" sword was 5 1/2 feet long--hence only a person of gigantic size could wield it. Certainly 140 years is enough time for politically inspired myths such as the Scotichronicon to develop. But I am truly curious as to how tall the man really was. Any thoughts?


Indeed. I'm very sceptical about this myself. Our knowledge of Wallace is rather limited, I don't see how we can know how tall he was. Even with the Scottish kings, who are rather better documented than Wallace, the first king who we know what he looked like is James I of Scotland, 5 generations after Wallace, of who we have a rather crude drawing. PatGallacher 02:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC) There is no depiction of Wallace from his own lifetime, regardless of the 'crude drawing'. CsinC


  • I was once at a Highland Festival. They had an exact reproduction of Uncle Will's sword. The sword and I were exactly the same height 5 ft 6 inches. I got the opportunity to wield it. There is no way I could fight with a sword of that size. It would be impossible. Uncle Will was at least 6 feet 6 inches in height to use such a sword in battle. Anyone who is familiar with Pro Wrestling of today, I suspect Uncle Will was about the size of Kane or The Undertaker. They are both about 6 feet 10 inches in height and both go just over 300 pounds. That is how I picture Uncle Will. --Bookofsecrets 19:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no historical record of either Wallace's height of his sword, but we can be confident that he carried a weapon typical of his time. Scottish claymores did not come into use until Wallace had ben dead for 200 years.


Well, we can assume he was not overly small, because of such legends. He was a Highland Scot, so he was probably over 6 feet. His sword was probably bigger than normal, though maybe not 5 1/2 ft. I know some Wallaces today, and they are rather big fellows, though they bear much more resemblance to Williams Axe-wielding friend from Braveheart. The Wallaces were/are known for their red hair, as well. Canaen 07:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC) Wallace was from Ayrshire or Renfrewshire, neither of which is remotely 'highland'.

  • One of my relatives from Scotland has seen his claymore many times on display and it is 66 inches in length. Many Wallace's, even today, have redish hair. One of my 2nd cousins is 7 ft tall and may go 325 pounds. I'd say he's pretty close to being the size of Uncle Will. --Bookofsecrets 02:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Your realticve has never seen Wallace's sword, however many times he has been to the Wallace monument. The weapon on display there is of 16th century provenance, CsinC.

He was a Highland Scot, so he was probably over 6 feet. Were Highlanders actually especially tall? Anyway, he was a lowlander, wasn't he? garik 00:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

He was, yes, but there are always exceptions. Augustulus 18:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I know just one Wallace, he is football player Ross Wallace, has black hair and is about 5feet and 5 inches, normal height of Wallace family. YESYESandmanygoals 09:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Execution

If no one has any objections, I will change "He was strangled by hanging, but released near death, emasculated, drawn and quartered, and beheaded, rendering..." to "He was then drawn and quartered..." If you refer to the drawing and quartering wiki article, you will learn that the drawing and quartering process entails the hanging, emasculation, the quartering, and the beheading, and this would therefore simplify the description of the execution. Any objections? --Mccluret 04:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The average reader won't expect drawing and quartering to include all of those things, so I think we might as well leave most of it in.Canaen 07:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


  • The purpose of this form of execution came about through the old beliefs that if a person isn't laid to rest in one piece, they cannot cross over into Summerland or Nirvana. It is too keep their spirit here on the Earth plain. --Bookofsecrets 03:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


Did they have summerland and nirvana back then? Or the "Earth plain"? --AimeeLee 15:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes. They may have had a different name for it but the end result is the same.--Bookofsecrets 04:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and the different name was "Heaven". The Scots and English at the time were steeped in hundreds of years of Christianity, so the idea of quartering the body would be couched in "Christian" terms.Camillus (talk) 10:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


One thought - the use of 'evisceration' is not entirely accurate. Evisceration implies removal of the skin. Disembowelment is the correct term User:ThadRyan

Evisceration refers to the removal of the viscera which are the internal organs. Removal of the skin is flaying. I would say that evisceration and disembowelment are near enough to be synonymous.

There is evidence to suggest that he was tall that is stated in James Mackays book (Wallaces Biography)that the gallows built for Wallace were larger than normal due to his exceptional height, this being from contemporary Engilsh chroniclers.


[edit] Aberdeen?

An anon added Aberdeen as one of the locations where Wallace's body parts where displayed. I may be wrong, but as his body was "quartered", I suspect that the addition of this fifth place may be questionable? Camillus (talk) 10:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Probably. Adraeus 11:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Great Cause and Other Matters.

As elsewhere- ((Robert Bruce, 5th Lord of Annandale)-I've corrected here a serious-and all too common-misconception about the Great Cause. Although Edward insisted that he be recognized as Lord Paramount of Scotland, the feudal court at Berwick was conducted in a fair, open and legal manner. Both John Balliol and Robert Bruce, as the leading claimants, were allowed to appoint forty arbiters each, to which number Edward added twenty-four of his own. It was these arbiters who decided in favour of John Balliol, because he had the superior claim as the descendant of the eldest daughter of David of Huntingdon: even twenty-nine of Bruce's own arbiters voted in his favour. Edward then gave judgement in Balliol's favour. The English King's later use -and misuse- of the feudal concessions he had gained in the whole process should not detract from these simple facts.

There are some other matters of fact with which to take issue.

Did Pope Boniface really give Edward a medal for the massacre at Berwick? If so, this is the first time I have ever heard of such a thing. I've removed the reference because, quite frankly, I believe it to be absurd. The Vatican has been responsible for many crimes and misdemeanours throughout its long history; but I do not believe that any pope, even a pope as controversial as Boniface, would have awarded a medal for a wholesale massacre. Please cite your source for this piece of information; otherwise leave well alone. Also where in Gascony, I would be interested to know, did Boniface keep his court?

Edward was not present at the battle of Dunbar.

There seems to be a serious failure to grasp the key to the Scottish victory at Stirling Bridge. I know of no reliable account of the battle which says the Scots fought the English on both banks of the River Forth; if they had their army would almost certainly have been destroyed. The Bridge was a bottleneck which slowed the progress of the English army to a trickle. Wallace and Moray won because Surrey was unable to deploy his whole army: those on the south bank could not cross the bridge fast enough to aid those under attack in the north. That portion of Surrey's army unaffected by the attack later retired in good order. The Scots victory, impressive as it was, remained partial rather than 'overwhelming.'

I have little doubt that Wallace's 'pride' did suffer as a result of the defeat at Falkirk, but I don't think it is objective or historical to make reference to this; unless, of course, his diary notes are in safe keeping, along with Pope Boniface's Massacre Award?

Rcpaterson 03:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wallace sword.

There is confusion on the length of Wallaces supposed sword because of the modern concept of sword fighting and the influence of far eastern movies etc. The sword was either used in conjunction with the shield i. blows were accepted or parried by the shield and the sword then wielded to strike at the opponent, they rarely 'fenced', often the sheer volume of people around the swordsman made thius impossible and so the weapon was used to stab around the shiled which held back the opponent, the short roman swoord is an ideal weapon for this. The leaders would often be back from the press and they would have a 'two handed' sword. This is a very lonf weapon which is held in both hands and it is simply swung around the body in great arcs to keep the enemy away out of stabbing distance. It was often ceremonial, oversized to represent power and this can be seen at the opening of the British Parliament when the Queens Champion enters holding a hugetwo handed sword in front of him. The size of the sword therefore does not mean neccessarily that the person was of any great height. Though tall people were around in the 1200,s they were rare, stone coffins, the height of doorways in old buildings etc would duggest the norm to have been nearer to 5ft 4 to 5ft 6ins.

Major John Huggins Royal Anglian Regiment (retrd)

While I tend to agree with the majority of this, I know from experience that a 5'5" man carrying around a 5'5" (or thereabouts) sword is pretty silly looking, not to mention awkward, and incredibly inconvenient. The back-scabbards were used to make this more convenient. Nevertheless, a man and sword of the same length still allows the tip to interfere with the heels when walking. Mounting the scabbard high on one's back only makes it more difficult to remove the sword from the scabbard. The only resolution is to just be a taller man, the taller the better. BTW, the two-handed broadswords were used not only to keep the enemy at swords length, but they served wonderfully in taking the legs from beneath cavalry.

A couple of points here....Two-handed swords were not part of the armoury of 13/14th century men-at-arms - how would you deap with your horse and your shiled if both hands were needed for your sword? Also; the primary battlefield weapon was the spear or lance regradless of class or station. If there had been a practice of 'rear=rank' men wielding massive swords we can be pretty confidentr that medieval writers would have mentioned it, but they do not, so where does the suggestion come from in the first place? Historical novels? As for 'taking out' horses legs from under them? Againd, we should expect that medieval sources would mention this. Finally, has anyone seen a 13/14th century depiction of a man with a 'back-scabbard'? Or read a 13/14th century description of one?

An essay about the puported Wallace sword can be found at [1]. It also claims that men of 5'7" can wield swords longer than Wallace's. Gwinva 11:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Just another thing to add to the melting pot regarding Wallace's height. Medieval men were not significantly shorter than modern men. A study of a London urban skeletons puts the average at 5'8" for a man, and 5'2" for a woman (ref: John Clark, The Medieval Horse and its Equipment The Boydell Press, 2004, quoting a 1988 study by WJ White; to be fair, the source gives no specific date within the medieval period). A well-nourished, athletic knight would probably exceed the average. Compare this with the modern man. Discussions of doorway heights are irrelevant: low doorways were an architectural custom, arising out of defensive structures (ie. ducking ones head to enter a room puts you at a disadvantage). Forget late medieval beds, also: they were shortened when it became custom to sleep sitting up. Gwinva 15:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "...at first cleansing the countryside"

"In the six months following Stirling Bridge, Wallace led a force to York, at first cleansing the countryside..."

This is such a touching reference to genocide that I cannot let it pass. If you're going to write history then you're going to have to stop making weasel comments excusing wanton killing of civilians whose only crime was to be born English. If I remember rightly, Mel Gibson's "Braveheart" did the same trick of mentioning this ethnic cleansing as a segue between scenes. It's just as morally reprehensible as the English doing this to the Scots, or Serbs doing this to Croats or CROATS DOING THIS TO SERBS...you get the idea.

On the other hand, if you're writing blatent propaganda then this is as good a place as any. I'm sure that Wikipedia's admins will support you, because they don't know any better. --86.138.65.171 16:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Mel Gibson was supportive of the massacre of innocent people ... and I'm not sure Wallace went all the way to York. BY THE WAY I AM A COMPLETE DICKHEAD -Augustulus

You clearly don't think at all. The line was clearly in the film, and Gibson has never mentioned his beliefs on what it meant one way or the other.

By the way, don't edit other people's discussion as you did with the CAPITALIZED part above, and then it won't happen to you. Just sayin'--86.131.103.166 15:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Article Itself!

Would it be possible to find someone, who not only knows Scottish history, but who also knows how to write English, and ask that person to rewrite the page? The structure, as it stands, is positively Byzantine; words like "cowardly," "outrage" and "underhand tactics" do not belong in an encyclopedia; and indeed, the writer could be suspected of anti-Scottish, or at least anti-Wallace, prejudice by some of his sentences. Many of these represent his own value-judgements rather than facts disclosed by scholarly research! Also, a better distinction could be made between Blind Harry's literary work and the fruits of that scholarly research. PeadarMaguidhir 20:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

My December 2005 rewrite was probably the most significant edition of this article.
  • Regarding your claims that the writer is "anti-Scottish", let me set the record straight. I'm a fifth-generation Scottish-American who professionally composes original Scottish Celtic music. As part of my cultural identity, I have a great deal of respect and love for Scotland, and so I study the history of Scotland in depth to connect with, at least, the spirit of my family's origins.
  • The sources listed in the bibliography were used, which includes several scholarly research materials.
  • While the myth of William Wallace pervades popular fancy as Scotland's hero, the reality is that William Wallace was a thug. Wallace was most certainly Scotland's Robin Hood.
  • That said, I didn't use the words you mentioned in my edition I've actually been quite impressed with the article since my rewrite. I think you read this article after it was anonymously vandalized.
Adraeus 22:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

A very interesting read, but I think that the Blind Harry legend needs to be seperated from known fact.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.28.73.217 (talk)

[edit] Intro

How about an intro paragraph?? --Fang Aili talk 17:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Might I suggest "Born in Blood" by John J. Robinson Just a Traveling Man 17:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Battle of Falkirk subsection

According to one account, during his flight Wallace fought and killed Brian de Jay, master of the English Templars in a thicket at Callendar.

Interesting, given the Templar heavy cavalry that backed the Scots, can we get a reference for this? I'm a bit loose on my history of these conflicts, perhaps someone can enlighten me as to why the Templars were allegedly on both sides of this battle? Jachin 13:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The story that a force of Templars supported Bruce at Bannockburn(which I think is what you are referring to) is a 18th century myth. Individual Templars could have 'national' military obligations and thus might be found in any European army of the 13th and early 14th century.

[edit] Vandals

The introductory paragraph stated that "he was fat and ate mcdonalds" and like things, I deleted these acts of vandalism. Looking at the discussion it is not the first time that this site has been vandalized.

I just deleted a lot of vandalism in the "Wallaces execution" section. This page should be semiprotected. Actually, first off, one of the admins should ban the users who vandalised it (from the history page).

Yoda921 09:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Yoda

[edit] Hanged or Hung

Hanged means "executed by hanging." Hung means "suspended" otherwise.

Both are past tenses or past participles of the verb to hang, but each applies to specific cases.

   Examples: The five plotters in the Lincoln assassination were hanged.
   We hung the towels out on the clothesline to dry.

Therefore its Hanged, please do not continue to change the spelling back and forth. Matthew Yeager 15:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

meat is hung, men are hanged

[edit] "Wallace got married to Vanessa also known as Nessa or Poati84"

First sentence of the third paragraph of the section 'Wallace's exploits begin'. It don't know what it should be, but I've removed the bit about Poati84.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.75.151.10 (talk)

I've restored it to an earlier version, so it's now (hopefully) as it should be. In future, you can use the 'undo' function on the edit history to be sure you remove all the vandalism (or check the earlier versions). Gwinva 09:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Makes No Sense

"In support of the Elderslie origins some proposed that William's traditional father—known as Malcolm Wallace until recently when David Wallace's seal was found — David Wallace of Low Fell, a knight and vassal to James the Steward, actually came from Riccarton, Ayrshire, near Loudoun.

"To the contrary, the Elderslie origins are defended with the arguments..."

To the contrary of the "Elderslie origins" are the "Elderslie origins"? Say what? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GeneCallahan (talk • contribs) 06:03, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

[edit] NPOV

I feel that the article is very pro-Scotland and anti-England, violating NPOV. I welcome discussion on the issue though. --mjwilson 15:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That's because its being confused with an Oscar-winning film.

Can you please point out some examples of where in the text of the article you believe this bias exists? 74.9.58.34 16:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe that an example can be found in the first paragraph:

Sir William Wallace (c. 1270 – August 23, 1305) was a knight and Scottish patriot, who led a resistance against the English occupation of Scotland during the Wars of Scottish Independence. He is considered to be the greatest hero in Scotland's history

It's possible I'm wrong, but when I first read it my gut interpreted it as biased. --mjwilson 16:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Well the first sentence is accurate. If you interpret that as bias against England how would you rephrase it? Wallace was pretty biased himself, it's difficult to write his life story without reporting that. The second sentence is, however, dodgy. Weasel word 'considered' and no cite to back it up. If no-one has a cite (such as a good solid public survey or the like), then it should be removed.--Escape Orbit 01:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Just to note that that if Mwilso24 doesn't respond in the next few days, I'm removing the NPOV tag. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure there was a recent survey placing Wallace as most famous scot ever.Can't quite remember where i saw it,perhaps someone can find it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.136.74 (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Extra Info

Hello there. Added extra info on the skirmish at the River Irvine. I also noticed that the Wallace page gives no coverage to Ardrossan Castle. I have added a section on that and linked to Wallace's Larder. The pictures are my own. :) TheBourtreehillian 16:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Headline text

What did I miss? And who the hell is Zach Morin?? Well done ohnoitsjamie for reverting that nonsense. TheBourtreehillian 17:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] His birthdate

According to other sources he was supposedly born in 1276. Can I ask how one would structure his alleged birthdays to make it clear he was born c. 1272 or c. 1276?

Since we truly do not know the year in which he was born, it is not strictly correct to assume a date of circa 1272 while disregarding a possible circa 1276. However, the addition of the c. (circa) is a sound one but the favouring of the earlier birthday over the later date is not.

There is no evidence he was born on either date.

Ah...I have an idea.... TheBourtreehillian 12:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The opening paragraph in Background claims his birthdate to be 1672or6; this must have become confused with the 16th century work it references. --Cammacleay I've changed this now (talk) 14:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Descendants

Since there is no known evidence that Wallace ever fathered a child, any notion that one can possibly be descended from him is rendered absurd. Possessing the surname Wallace is not really enough. In Ayrshire the name is extraordinarily common. In addition to this, it is usually only the aristocracy (from Royalty downwards) who can trace their ancestors so far. Since Wallace was neither, and since he left no evidence of having fathered a child, I have undone the last addition which claimed that more than 300 people in New Zealand and Australia are descended from him. My suspicion is that the user is a Wallace and wants to connect his or herself with the Scottish patriot. TheBourtreehillian 11:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It has come to my attention that the user who included such dubious information has recently published a book about the matter. How he was able to verify such claims and subsequently publish a book about it is beyond me. Then again, many pseudo-historical works have been published. I am sure this is one of them. The user also created a page about himself and his book, but since the book cannot possibly contain verifiable evidence, his own entry and the entry dedicated to his own book have since been deleted. TheBourtreehillian 12:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I just reverted the addition of the same information. If the quality of the paragraph added to the article is any indication of the quality of the book, I think we need say no more on the subject. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 03:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wallace's Height

I always wondered why being tall is considered dubious. You must substantiate the claim of dubiety or I will be undoing, or elaborating on the edit. I personally find the idea of Sir William Wallace being short or average height to be dubious. The Scotichronican states "He was a tall man with the body of a giant, cheerful in appearance with agreeable features, broad-shouldered and big-boned, with belly in proportion and lengthy flanks, pleasing in appearance but with a wild look, broad in the hips, with strong arms and legs, a most spirited fighting-man, with all his limbs very strong and firm".

The Scotichronicon was not contemporary but then....neither are many of the Wallace sources. Since all sources which target his height claim that he was tall rather than average, we cannot allow claims of average or short height to stand when no source exists to support it.

At the very least you could explain why you find it dubious. I admit there is no contemporary evidence stating he was tall. But there is no contemporary evidence that he was average so the burden of proof is on you. Please verify. TheBourtreehillian 14:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I was not involved in the edits you mention, but am interested in the debate arising from them. I would agree with you that most contemporary/early references to Wallace seem to present him as a big man, but whether such subjective comments could ever be translated to actual measurements is another matter. Medieval men and women were only marginally shorter than their modern counterpart. The average height of an urban Englishman was 5'8" (1.72m). A woman was on average 5'2" (1.58m). (and the the well-nourished knightly classes would exceed this average). (ref: Clark, John (Ed). The Medieval Horse and its Equipment: c.1150-c.1450, Rev. 2nd Ed, UK: The Boydell Press, 2004, p 25) Edward I of England was over 6'. The commonly touted height for Wallace is 6'6", extraplolated mainly from the size of the Wallace Sword. Two major problems with this: there is considerable debate about whether the sword is his (so any height judgements can only ever be speculation) but, actually more importantly, such a judgement is based on a misunderstanding of fighting with long swords. Any untrained man picking up a sword would probably find it impossible to wield (see discussion earlier) but anyone of average size who had trained with weapons (as Wallace had) would easily manage a sword of that length (see Sword Forum essay). Short of locating his quartered body and measuring his reassembled skeleton, we will never know. But does it matter? This article need not say more than 'frequently described by early documents as a tall man...'. Gwinva 01:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The earliest and oldest documents ONLY describe him as a tall man. When his stature was analysed by later chroniclers, they all agree that he was large. My objection was that NO early document refers to a average sized Wallace and so the declaration of dubiety is in itself dubious and so I requested some evidence (knowing fully that it will not be forthcoming). The physical attributes of Wallace derive mainly from the early chronicles AND NOT from the sword and I can only agree that to use the sword as an indicator is absurd. The user simply inserted the word DUBIOUS in the body of the article (which could almost be described as vandalism since it supplied no source for such an attitude - imagine I wondered through wiki typing the word DUBIOUS with no supporting evidence into articles written by people who know better). It is just speculation, but it is speculation based on several points of documentary evidence. The suggestion that he was of average build is supported by nothing. As to whether or not it matters, I can only say that his legendary fame is partly based on his legendary stature. I have already removed the offending section so please feel free to include the sentence you suggested at the end of your comment. You could exclude the word FREQUENTLY since all documents which mention his height speak EXCLUSIVELY of his great stature. Thank you for your input. TheBourtreehillian 02:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not mean to imply any documents suggested he was average, but rather the 'frequently' and 'most' was because not all documents mention his height. (Giggle as I think of some dry legal tome saying "and To William Wallace, giant, I leave four head of cattle"), and also to cover the (extremely likely) possibility that I am not aware of all the writings about Wallace. So, that is a roundabout way of saying absolutely, I agree with your statement that those documents that describe his stature claim it was large, and there is no evidence to suggest that he was an average man (then or now: since the modern UK average is still only 5'9"-5'10"). My poorly concluded height analysis above was supposed to indicate he must be at least 6 foot for anyone to have described him as tall, and could quite possibly have been 6'6" (why anyone thought that dubious, I don't know..probably from a common misconception that Medieval men were significantly shorter than their modern counterparts) and, for all we know, might have been 6'8"...or anything else someone wants to speculate. He was large..YES. That was part of his legend..YES (vitally important..we're talking about an age when men were hard, when physique and physical prowess was everything...his stature contributed to him becoming a hero-figure, in the way great sportsmen are today. To present such an image does not require a speculative measurement, which can never be substantiated. (IE. the speculation is regarding the precise height, not the FACT he was a large, well-proportioned, athletic, strong warrior.) Gwinva 02:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gwinva

Dear Gwinva, I found your comments about Wallace to be impressive. Please don't put yourself down and please blame me for your sudden fall in self assurance. It was not my intention. I agreed with everything you said. Keep up the good work and please...you are welcome to comment on Wallace any time because you are clearly qualified to do so. I was delighted to see someone trying to blow away the myth of medieval man's stature. Anyone who knows the height of Edward I is a good guy or gal in my books. Any frustration you detected was due to the previous edit and not yours, which was nothing but extremely helpful. I apologise if I was a bit brusque. It was not directed at you. TheBourtreehillian 11:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Descendents (Again)

If Wallace had a son it would be an extremely relevant and interesting fact that merits a full section of its own. Not just an after thought tagged on at the end of one. Unfortunately, there does not appear to be any reputable historian willing to make such a claim, and hence no cites available. So additions to the article claiming existence of a son are going to keep getting removed until this happens. I'm not holding my breath. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

All edits by Shikakazunara are just plain vandalism and should be reverted on sight. He added the same garbage to other articles that have naught to do with William Wallace. He's just looking for attention. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 00:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Romanticized Image

I see a lot of debate about Wallace's height, weight, weapon of choice, etc. in this talk page, and would like to point out a quote from the movie Braveheart, when Gibson says "...and shoot lightning bolts from his arse", or something along those lines. Now I am not saying Braveheart is accurate in any way, but am simply referencing it to make the point that Sir William Wallace has been greatly exaggerated. In regards to his sword which is supposedly 5'6" or something along those lines, please remember that it is very possible that many people in Scotland may have somewhat distorted facts, in order to create a greater sense of pride in the people's background as Scots. Now, there are even many who go so far as to say it is possible that William Wallace never existed, but I won't get into that, in order to avoid pissing off some of the Wallaces who may enjoy editing this page. Sandwiches99 01:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem with William Wallace is that too much discussion of him cofuses the *real* William Wallace who lived and breathed and died horribly in London, with the William Wallace created by Blind Harry in his poem The Wallace in the 1440s and then subsequently portrayed by Gibson on Braveheart. There is doubt that the *real* William Wallce existed and equally there is no doubt that Blind Harry created a fantastic figure in his poem which had little connexion with the real Wallace. The Wallace of the poem was an exaggeration and his deeds has been exaggerated ever since. Any discussion of Wallace which is based on Harry's poem is meaningless.--Jaygtee 10:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

We as historians know nothing about William really, about two years of his life are known, the rest is confined to the memories of those who were there. Gavin Scott (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] small and brief agreement and a bundle of facts

It is true that there is much discussion about his stature but since no source indicates he was average or small, we can only conclude that the belief that he was of average or smaller built is the silly one. Academics agree that the sword on display was not his, so any discussion about its measurements is futile. While it is undoubted that "many people in Scotland may have somewhat distorted facts" there is absolutely no doubt that the people of England have done the same. And the USA. And India. And China. And...everywhere. That 'distortion' is called 'history'. History is never completely accurate. It reflects more about the teller than it does about the truth.

As for 'getting into' the possibility that he never existed, I would love to see you try. His pockets were emptied on his execution and the contents still survive. His execution was witnessed by hundreds of Londoners and was recorded in early English records. The charter given to the tradesmen of Lubeck also survives and bore the names of Wallace and Moray. A document giving him protection from the king of France was also found on his person before his execution.

Lubeck Letter in Scottish Parliament

TheBourtreehillian 19:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)