When writing about a person such as William Wallace its hard to decide what category to put it into. As he was a real man then the obvious place would be history, but there are so many myths (or at the very least dubious stories) concerning him that... well, he is a legend isn't he?

So, what are the facts about William Wallace? Well, he was born in the late 13th century (around 1270), but we'll get to his place of birth later! He fought against the English in two major battles during the Scottish Wars of Independance - Stirling Bridge (1297) and Falkirk (1298). He won the first of those battles, but lost the second and we'll get to possible reasons for that later as well. He was executed (some say murdered) in 1305 on charges of treason against the Edward I, king of England and self made Overlord of Scotland! Wallace (rightly) did not recognise Edward as his king (or whatever he claimed he was) as he was said to be a supporter of (the deposed king) John Balliol's claim to the Scottish throne! (While the Bruce family considered themselves as being heirs to the throne, it wasn't until after Wallace was dead that Robert the Bruce claimed the throne for himself. So, in the eyes of Wallace and many others, John Balliol was still the rightful king of the Scots!)

So that's the facts, what about the speculation concerning his life prior to his rise to fame at Stirling? Let's start with where the man was born...

I recently read a book about Wallace called Brave Heart, by James Mackay (as opposed to Braveheart, the book the film was based on, by Randall Wallace). In the first chapter the author states that William Wallace was born in Ellerslie near Kilmarnock, Ayrshire. However, popular opinion has it that he was born in Elderslie, which has at some point been known as Ellerslie, near Paisley, Renfrewshire.

There seems to be some doubt as the the existance of Ellerslie in Ayrshire, at least around the time that Wallace was around. However, the arguements that Mackay uses are very similar to some used by David Ross (the man that walked to London in 1305 following the route of Wallace's last journey) when he argued the point for Elderslie (you can read these here). One aspect of Ross's arguement I liked was the addition of old maps of the areas, which is something that Mackay didn't provide. However, with Mackay's arguements being produced in a book there are plenty of references to his sources.

At this moment in time I am still on the side of Elderslie, but I am curious as to what the members of this forum think... however, the lack of map evidence for Ayrshire is quite strong against that location!

So enough about where he might have been born, what about his early life? Well, most of what we know is thanks to Blind Harry's epic poem Wallace written some time after Wallace died, but supposedly based on earlier material that sadly no longer exists (assuming it ever did!) Anyway, here are some of the events that helped make William Wallace the man he became...

Ayr itself is supposedly where Wallace broke the back of an English soldier. As a show of strength, the soldier was offering locals the chance to beat him on the back with a stick. Many tried (what Scot then wouldn't jump at the chance?) but every time the soldier laughed at their feeble efforts. Then along came Mr. Wallace and... so strong was he the soldier didn't stand a chance!

Another time Wallace was said to have killed a man following an arguement over a fish! Wallace was imprisoned in the tollbooth in Ayr and while there he was said to have contracted dysentery and went into a coma. Believing him to be dead his jailers dragged him out and dumped his body over a wall. Hearing of his death, his body was collected and, once it was realised he wasn't actually dead, he was nursed back to health.

Then there was the time he had a dream that he a man presented him with a sword on a mountain so high he could see all of Scotland. The land was on fire and Wallace was told it was his destiny to right the wrongs that were being done around him. Then a woman gave him a red and green wand and made the sign of a saltire on his face. Wallace mentioned his dream to a priest who told him the man was St. Andrew and the woman was the Virgin Mary. The red of the wand signified battles and the green courage... and as we all know Wallace was a very courageous man!

If anyone else has their own Wallace stories please feel free to share them here!

So, to the famous battles mentioned above! The first, at Stirling Bridge, was probably one of the best in the history of Scotland (definitely ranking alongside Bannockburn if not as well known) and one of the few where the Scots not only held the best position, but used it to their advantage. The story goes that Wallace watched the English army on the southern side of the Forth from the Abbey Craig (where the National Wallace Monument now stands) and held back until their soldiers started crossing the wooden bridge. Once so many crossed and more were still crossing, Wallace gave the command for the Scots to attack. This they did leaving the English nowhere to go (more of their army were still trying to cross the bridge and the Forth wasn't where you wanted to be with a full kit!) so it was basically a case of the English being slaughtered where they stood (or drowning as they tried to escape)!

However, the following year in Falkirk was a totally different matter. Not only did the Scots have a poor position to fight from the English had the advantage of more, better armed, men! This time the English were victorious and there are probably a couple of reasons for this! While everyone goes on about Wallace being a great leader, and this may be true, there was another person in charge at Stirling - Andrew de Moray! Unfortunately he was wounded at that battle and died soon after, leaving Wallace to lead more or less on his own! The other reason things went so bad for the Scots was down to another man - Edward I, probably one of the best ever warrior kings in Europe! That man was ruthless and, as much as you may hate him, a tactical genius... there was no way, had he been at Stirling the previous year, he would have made the mistakes of the previous battle! (There is also a possibility that had Robert the Bruce faced the army of Edward I at Bannockburn instead of the weaker Edward II, things might have gone differently there... but that's another matter - and Robert bided his time and didn't make a move until Edward I was dead!)

So, William Wallace - a great leader of men or not? Most people go for the former, but then the legend that is Wallace has grown way beyond what the man ever was! Its not only Blind Harry that cashed in on his fame (tho maybe Wallace wasn't really that famous until the poet put pen to paper!) as Randall Wallace has made a few bucks from the story as well. Actually, he has made a lot of money from a story that is loosely based on a man called William Wallace... but then so did Mel Gibson and its a statue of the actor, not the author, that stands (or used to stand!) near the monument on the Abbey Craig!

Oh yea, now that I think about it... the National Wallace Monument! It was built in the 1860s and has to be one of the ugliest buildings ever constructed! Apparently 80,000 people were there when the foundation was laid... but within a couple of years most had lost interest! If it wasn't for the work and effort of a few people it would never have been completed... I wonder if thats why the face looks like it does?

Anyway, I think I've said enough about Wallace and will leave it for you all to have your say (as I am sure some of you will). However, I will leave the last word for now to Blind Harry himself:

First, here I honour, in particular,
Sir William Wallace, much renown'd in war;
Whose bold progenitors have long time stood,
Of honourable and true Scottish blood;
And in first rank of ancient barons go,
Old knights of Craigy, baronets also;
Which gallant race, to make my story brief,
Sir Thomas Wallace represents as chief.
So much for the brave Wallace' father's side,
Nor will I here his mother's kindred hide:
She was a lady most complete and bright,
The daughter of that honourable knight,
Sir Ranald Crawford, high sheriff of Ayr,
Who fondly doted on his charming fair.
Soon wedded was the lovely blooming she,
To Malcolm Wallace then of Ellerslie;
Which am'rous pair, transported with delight,
Begot young Malcolm that same joyful night;
Then William, who, by true consent of all,
Was honour'd to be the Scottish general.

There are more than a dozen books on Wallace in my bookcase, and only slightly less on Robert the Bruce and James Douglas. Anything from the ancient writings of Harry the Minstrel and John Barbour, through Victorian tomes and the post Braveheart flood of writings, including Graeme Morton's William Wallace, the Man and the Myth, who is trying to explain him away, without succeeding.

A agree with you that Andrew Murray was the real genius behind the battle of Stirling Bridge, but Wallace is an important symbol for Scotland. And Braveheart has done wonders for the tourist trade.

BTW I have read about a third choice for Wallace's birthplace, in some news report a while back. Some seal was found, that named him the son of Adam Wallace (instead of the accepted Malcolm) and placed him in the Borders. That seems a bit far fetched for me, though.

I agree that William Wallace is an important person in our history and I can't deny what Braveheart has done for this country! That doesn't change the fact that much of his story (especially that portrayed in the film!) is mostly myth - all thanks to Blind Harry... and Randall Wallace didn't help matters there! Some of de Moray's actions have been attributed to Wallace, which is probably part of the reason that great man is forgotten or overlooked!

As for Wallace being born in the Borders, thats a new one on me! I knew of a seal (attached to the Lubeck letter I believe) that described Wallace in Latin as William filius Alan (William son of Alan)! On the Ragman Roll of 1296 there is an entry said to be this Alan - Waleys, Aleyn (tenant le Roi du counte de Are) - but I haven't seen anything that definitely connects the two. There is also an Adam - Waleys, Adam le (del counte de Are) - but his entry clearly states he's in Ayr, not the Borders! As for Blind Harry's claim that William's father was called Malcolm... like most of the rest that the minstrel wrote, it's open to a great deal of debate!

The Adam I mentioned, might well have been Alan. Like I said, it was some time back when I read that article, and my memory may be off. But I distinctly remember the mention of him being from the Borders. Which did not seem very likely to me, since the earliest mentions of Wallace all tie him to Ayrshire and Renfrewshire.

Well, you know, Hollywood is in the entertainment business, and movies are often more hysterical than historical. Mel's grubby Wallace in tartan plaid was quite a let down from the book my granny used to read to me when I was a wee bairn, Scottish Chiefs. Both are equally fictitious. But both were great entertainment, just as long as you don't take them as gospel truth.

Would that be The Scottish Chiefs by Jane Porter?

As for Braveheart, unfortunately some have taken it as the gospel - especially those that want to believe Robert the Bruce fought alongside the English at Falkirk!

Yes, that is the one. Granny loved it.

I don't buy into the idea of Bruce being at Falkirk, no matter which side novelists put him on. Nigel Tranter has this moving scene in the Bruce trilogy, that has him arriving late at Falkirk, and forming a flying wedge to extract Wallace from the lost battle. Makes good reading, BUT I think Bruce was busy with his own agenda on the other side of the country. He would never have fully embraced Wallace's cause, which favored John Balliol. They were occassionally in the same camp, like at Irvine, but not often.

Bruce was a far more complex character.

I still am However, as I'm sure its not me you meant...

I agree that Robert the Bruce had his own agenda, as became obvious after Edward I was dead! I often wonder how the Battle of Bannockburn (as that at Stirling Bridge) would have ended had it been Edward I leading the English! There is no doubt that the end result wouldn't have been the same and I think Robert knew that... hence he bided his time!

That then leads to the question as to what would have happened had Wallace not been executed! Would the Bruce have taken care of him as he did Comyn and more or less any other Scot that stood against him?

Anyway, history played out the way it did and... if I had to share a birthday with someone could I have chosen better than Braveheart himself? (For those that don't know, that is in fact Robert the Bruce not William Wallace! When Robert was on his death bed he asked his friend William Douglas to cut out his heart and carry it to the holy land. That his friend attempted, but on his way faced the Moors in a battle in which he was killed. However, as he rode to meet his fate he threw the casket containing the king's heart and threw it ahead, supposedly saying "Pass first in fight, brave heart!" as he did!)

Well, you are only partially right there.

It was in fact James Douglas who carried the Bruce's heart on crusade. William was his father, and he is reputed to have been the first noble who joined Wallace's cause, but was taken into custody after the debacle at Irvine, when he refused to surrender his son as a hostage to the English. He died at the Tower of London in 1298, probably murdered or executed.

The throwing of the heart at the battle of Teba was not part of the earliest version of Barbour's The Brus, and was probably added later, and may well belong in the realm of myth. According to the original version the casket with the heart was still around Sir James' neck when he was found dead, surrounded by the moors he had slain.

I did actually mean James, not William... and I also had the supposedly in the wrong place!

As you say Liz, the story of Bruce's heart has probably changed over time! It would also appear that the version of The Brus that I have has had lines added - 10 in the last section alone, but if I'm reading it right they've all been added before Douglas went to Spain!

Now that is an interesting premise.... What if???

If Wallace would have opposed the Bruce, very likely.

It was Bruce's cunning and patience that Scotland needed, not Wallace's impetuosity, to get the job done. Did you ever study his battle plans? Brilliant, as long as you forget about Methven and Dalrigh. Once he got his stride he turned into a first class guerilla fighter. The man had studied under the master tactitian, Edward I.

Bruce would never have fought at Bannockburn if Edward I would still have been alive. That would have been suicide.

No, Barbour was born around the time that Bruce and Douglas died. The book was written about 40 years after the fact, from stories collected from men that had known them and/or fought with them. So it is far more reliable than Blind Harry's Wallace. One of the people Barbour knew personally was Archibald the Grim, Douglas' son. Plus, of course there are plenty of other sources to corroborate his stories.

Liz, I meant the lines were added in the poem before the bit where Douglas went to Spain! Anyway, I will get round to reading it one of these days... and I'll also finish Blind Harry's Wallace off some day too!

As for battle plans, the only ones I have seen relating to the time of Wallace and Bruce are for the battles of Stirling Bridge, Falkirk and Bannockburn itself! Next year I plan to visit the area of Bannockburn where the main part of the battle itself took place (as well as some other battlefields, which reminds me...)

Here is a view of the William Wallace statue at Bemersyde, which has recently had a repair to the sword and the targe painted.

I'd like to think that someone would clean the paint off the shield... it might be very patriotic, but its as meaningful as Mel Gibson having his face painted in Braveheart!

And it really looks tacky.