Literary works?? Do you know what that means? It means stories. These two 'sources' are poems, by poets. When stuying history, you use historical accounts, which were kept by lots of people, giving us far more real accounts.
Also with regards to your, 15th century sources, note that Wallace lived in the 13th century, Blind Harry's poem is from 172 years after Wallace died!
As for the English oppressing the scots for centuries? maybe you didn't read the post, the English only invaded scot land one year before Wallaces uprising, hardly centuries of oppression, the fact that there were Scots who supported Edward, and English who supported John Balloil seems to have passed you by. Scottish historian are who recorded these events, records in those times were actully very good, you don't need to hear about it from a poet 172 years later, I never said anything about Scott's book, I'm not familiar with it, tho I do know that he is a novelist, not a historian.
As to blind harry's peom, he invents a war that never happened (there had been peace for 3 generations before the war in 1296), and invents a history ofor wallace prior to 1297, before which there are no records at all of wallaces life. The fish incident, there is no evidence it happened, and he was not selling fish, he had just caught them and was accused of poaching. If you look at actual sources, you would know that Wallace was a land owner (at a time when 99% of the population were not) and his family are Crown Tenants of Ayrshire (which is a minor noble title) and are early members of the House of Stuart (which is what came to be the ruling house of Scotland and then also England.) so yes he was a noble, and he was not poor.
I don't think you seem to grasp the point I was trying to make about the statue at the Wallace memorial, they smashed the braveheart statue because it makes a mockery of hte real wallace, it's stupid, wallace was a scottish hero, but he was not this ridiculous freedom fighter, he fought for the stature of his nation, not as some stupid blue faced twat screaming for his freedom. Wallace is retarded as a military hero, just like say Lord Nelson, he kicked the French's arses, but noone sees him as some ridiculous messianic figure like you are trying to portray Wallace as. Really, get back to reality this is history, not some silly movie script.
Look at your own pictures of wallace, they show a noble knight, dressed in armour and mail, and carrying a seriously expensive looking sword, not some crazy clansman, fighting for his freedoooooom.
http://onemansblog.com/wp-content/up...rt-freedom.jpg Heres the stupid statue I was talking about portraying wallace as a screaming freedom fighter, in it's little cage because the locals wanted to smash it.
http://www.westernfolklife.org/weblo...y10%20(15).JPG this fucking enormous tower is the real wallace monument, that second pic of yours is a detail of that tower, notice again the knights dress, no kilts or other crazy stuff, they simply didn't exist. The whole tartan and kilts and clan structure was invented by the English to craft a kind of trans-class social construct, to unite the nobles and the peasants to prevent class revolt.
Basicly the point is William Wallace was not a freedom fighter, and he was not Jesus.