The strange story of Sir William Wallace

[sesame]

Ah, its so kind of you rhythmic delivery to call me a fool and a Fucking Moron. How very polite of you!

In the terrorism thread, Tux has talked about Braveheart and compared him to a terrorist! I have only spoken out against that. Since they they were calling him Braveheart, I did so too. (Is that a crime?) You are right, its William Wallace, they were talking about.

Originally Posted by Tux

Look at it this way... Will U consider braveheart to be a freedomfighter or a terrorist?? Well.. If it was today, that he lived, then he would for shure (pardon my bad english), be considered a terrorist..

I am no authority on...

Sir William Wallace

I know very little about him... except these:
Born: 1276 AD (according to History of William Wallace and Scottish Affairs) in the village of Elderslie, near Johnstone in Renfrewshire, Scotland.

His Brave Deeds: Kindly Read Exploits And Death Of William Wallace (Prose), "Hero Of Scotland" by the celebrated author Sir Walter Scott.
Also read, The Acts and Deeds of Sir William Wallace, Knight of Elderslie, by Blind Harry (15th century). Please, I dont want to bore you with details.

First of all, Wallace was Scottish, freedom was his birth-right. And the English were occupying Scotland by force and carrying on a tyrannic rule marked by punishment and violence.
Edward I of England invaded Scotland, took Berwick and slaughtered eight thousand of its citizens:. as stated by Sir Walter Scott

1) May 1297, Braveheart beheaded the cruel English Sheriff of Lanark, William Heselrig responsible for publicly murdering Wallace's fiance Marion Braidfute of Lamington.

2) Wallace overpowers and snatches the Ardrossan Castle out of English occupation and burns it to the ground. The place is nowadays known as Wallace's Larder.

3) August 1297, Wallace and his men leave Selkirk Forest to join forces with Andrew Moray(another freedom fighter) at Stirling.

4) Disturbed by the guerilla war started by Wallace, King Edward punished Scotland by hanging all the members of the Council of Barons in Ayr (including Ronald Crawford ) & Renfrewshire. Wallace reached the spot with his men, rose against the English garrison, and killed them all.

5) September of 1297. The tiny Scottish army led by William Wallace and Andrew Moray defeated the Vast English army of 3,000 cavalry and 10,000 infantry! Yeah! Everybody knows about the famous battle of Stirling Bridge!

6) After winning Stirling, he was knighted SIR William Wallace along with John Graham(his 2nd in command) and William Crawford(son of Baron Ronald Crawford. The ceremony was conducted by Robert the Bruce(Earl of Carrick). Wallace was awarded the title of Guardian of Scotland and Leader of its armies. A true hero, dont you think?

7) March of 1298. William Wallace captured some territory in Northern England to Challange King Edward 1. Truely Braveheart!

8) Sadly enough, in the battle of Falkirk, the English Army snatched Victory. Wallace lost. On 1st April of 1298, the English invaded Roxburgh, Scotland. They robbed and destroyed Lothian and captured a few castles previously lost.

9) After Scotland suffered badly at the hands of the English army, Wallace decided to transfer power to Robert Bruce and John Comyn. Sadly and treacherously enough, Bruce joined forces with King Edward the villain in 1302, without the knowledge of Wallace.

10) August 5th, 1305. William Wallace was captured by a Scottish Knight called John de Menteith by an act of betrayal. He was handed over to the English and taken to Westminster Hall in London for a FAIR trial!! In the hall of the trial, Wallace was crowned with oak leaves and mocked as the king of the Outlaws! He was tortured in a most gruesome manner and they tried to force an acknowledge out of him. They failed! Wallace declared, "I could not be a traitor to Edward, for I was never his subject". He was charged with treason anyway and announced guilty!

Here is the text from Sir Walter Scott's work:

Originally Posted by Sir Walter Scott

Sir William Wallace was instantly transferred to London, where he was brought to trial in Westminster Hall, with as much apparatus of infamy as the ingenuity of his enemies could devise. He was crowned with a garland of oak,
to intimate that he had been king of outlaws. The arraignment charged him with high treason, in respect that he had stormed and taken towns and castles, and shed much blood. "Traitor," said Wallace, "was I never." The rest of the charges he confessed and proceeded to justify them. He was condemned, and executed by decapitation, 1305. His head was placed on a pinnacle on London bridge, and his quarters were distributed over the kingdom.

11) After the phony trial, on 23 August 1305, Wallace was immediately taken from the hall to face the real punishment of death in the Most Gruesome Manner possible! He was dragged over the road through the city of London naked and trampled by horses hooves. Wallace endured unspeakable pain as he was strangled by hanging but released still alive, again and again! His genitals were severed while he was alive. His guts were cut open from his belly and fried in front of him! And finally thank God, his battered head was kindly cut off! Wow! It reminds me of Jesus Christ!

12) You have earned it! Please read the rest of the atrocities. After beheading, Braveheart ie, William Wallace's body was cut into four parts. His head was put for display upon a spear on London Bridge. His other body parts were separately flaunted with in Aberdeen, Berwick, Newcastle and Stirling. Wow, there must have been a carnival!

13) The exact site of William Wallace's cruel execution is near the St. Bartholomew's Hospital at Smithfield, London.

Below are some of the statues built in memory of
Sir William Wallace, the Guardian of Scotland.

have you known this for some time or have you just learned it recently. because you seem to have writen this as some sort of walace scholar who has been studying him for years, yet two day's ago in another post you reffered to him as irish, when he is in fact scotish, this is a very basic fact about him and not something a scholar would forget. also you keep refering to him as braveheart this was just the name of the film not his name.
you may take our lives but you'll never take our freedom ahhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!

[sesame]

have you known this for some time or have you just learned it recently

Is that a valid argument? Sore loser!

The fact still remains that Sir William Wallace was a patriot and a Hero and nothing near a terrorist. And I dont understand why you have such a soft spot in your heart for modern toy-bomb blasting, innocent blood bathing terrorists? Terrorists or states that arrange to kill innocents are criminals in the eyes of humanity. And they will be regarded as villains all through history.

Terrorists who spill civilian blood are vermins on the face of this earth. And there is only one thing fit for them: Annihilation!

In the terrorism thread, I was condemning the Bombers who enjoy the killing the innocent. I will continue to crush them. If you sympathise with them, too bad, I cant help you.

i don't have a soft spot for anyone, but coming from ireland alot of my family where concidered terorists for fighting for there country, and had i been born twenty years earler i would also have been concidered a terorist, i haven't tried to excuse anyone's action's. i'm simply highlighting the nebulous nature of the word terorism/terorist and i think alot of groups now concidered terorists are fighting a legitamit cause, and alot of country's are as deserving of the term terorist as anyone else.

[sesame]

The fight can be clean and Gallant, even with Hide and Seek tactics.
Or it can be Bloody Fiendish and outright evil. Terrorism of freedom struggle depends on which path is taken.

Those who fight to free their motherland from oppression are freedom fighters.

And those, be it a fighter or a Govt. who cause a genocide or devastate innocent people, should never be forgiven under any pretext.

Whether they use guns, or nerve gas or car bombs for killing civilians, its all the same. They are guilty.

A good point well made, that was essentialy what i was getting at, i stil don't like the word terorist though its way to vague. i would like to appologise for being a bit of dick, tell me to fuck off if you want but sorry i was being a douchebag

[sesame]

givin that i didn't post this in the terorism thread it wasn't intended as an argument in that thred it was simply highlighting that you are a bullshit artist, trying to pass you self of as some sort of william wallace i mean BRAVEHEART expert by cutting and pasting some shit of the internet. a blatant platitude if ever i saw one.

I dont cut and paste.
I read, research and assimilate. And then write an article. :D
The quotes I have given from Sir Walter Scott, are for strengthening the fact that I am not inventing them. Sir Scott was a great man who lived in the 19th century, my friend! He never had a chance to get to the internet.

Sir Walter Scott(15 August 1771 – 21 September 1832)

Prove that I have cut and pasted before accusing me. Empty Delivery!
I am not angry with you. Why are you so upset then? Do you hate me for a reason?

Originally Posted by sesame

Is that a valid argument? Sore loser!

The fact still remains that Sir William Wallace was a patriot and a Hero and nothing near a terrorist. And I dont understand why you have such a soft spot in your heart for modern toy-bomb blasting, innocent blood bathing terrorists? Terrorists or states that arrange to kill innocents are criminals in the eyes of humanity. And they will be regarded as villains all through history.

Terrorists who spill civilian blood are vermins on the face of this earth. And there is only one thing fit for them: Annihilation!

In the terrorism thread, I was condemning the Bombers who enjoy the killing the innocent. I will continue to crush them. If you sympathise with them, too bad, I cant help you.

givin that i didn't post this in the terorism thread it wasn't intended as an argument in that thred it was simply highlighting that you are a bullshit artist, trying to pass you self of as some sort of william wallace i mean BRAVEHEART expert by cutting and pasting some shit of the internet. a blatant platitude if ever i saw one.

[sesame]

Originally Posted by Rhythmic Delivery

have you known this for some time or have you just learned it recently. because you seem to have writen this as some sort of walace scholar who has been studying him for years, yet two day's ago in another post you reffered to him as irish, when he is in fact scotish, this is a very basic fact about him and not something a scholar would forget. also you keep refering to him as braveheart this was just the name of the film not his name.

So many people call him Braveheart nowadays, so is it a crime? I read it from the internet and watched Braveheart's (Wallace) tactics of war in the Battle of Stirling Bridge in Discovery Channel. (strangely enough, the Discovery guys also referred to him as Braveheart! Perhaps nowadays, this name is more popular.) I dont know since which date Sir William Wallace came to be regarded as Braveheart. Anyway, what I say here is fact. As I have known it, others will know too. The scholars you are talking of, dont invent facts. They know it too for the first time from somewhere! It is immaterial if I have known it today, yesterday or 10 years ago. I know it now and thats all.

you may take our lives but you'll never take our freedom ahhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!

Where did I say this last bit? Now you're twisting facts, pal!

Originally Posted by sesame

In the terrorism thread, Tux has talked about Braveheart and compared him to a terrorist! I have only spoken out against that. Since they they were calling him Braveheart, I did so too. (Is that a crime?) You are right, its William Wallace, they were talking about.

In the article above, I have not copied one single line from anywhere. Except the quotes from Sir Walter Scott.

The Irish bit was my slip of keys, and I am really sorry for that. Ila the wise pointed that out to me first and now you. But that was in the terrorism thread, not here.

[TheSkronkDonkey]

This is a very complex topic. It's NOT simple, like some would have us believe.

I urge caution. This is the sort of topic that truly inflames passions, but I would personally warn us not to get too carried away. Fanaticism is at the root of a lot of humanity's ills.

Seeing sesame prop up the "achievements" of Wallace (not an attack on you, seasame), I am reminded of a critical insight we've probably all heard, but which I think needs repeating:

"Wars not make one great" -- Yoda

I don't really care about valour or commendation or submission to authority or anything of that tawdry nature. Of course, bravery is important. So is recongition for hard work. So is respect of authority when earned. But arguing for a person's character based on superficial intepretations of these things (one might call it awe) seems very dangerous indeed.

It's not that I'm remotely knowledgeable about Wallace; I'm not. That said, I did read some anecdotal stuff about atrocities he's alleged to have committed in a couple of more erudite reviews of "Braveheart" on IMDb. More than that, the film is clearly gussied up, and, in effect, also made "safer" by the presence of a Hollywood hearthrob in the leading role. Human beings crave the familiar and the known; it's what gives us comfort and assurance, like a baby picking out and responding to its mother's face. Likewise, Mel Gibson in the role of a complex historical figure, by default, says to the audience: "This guy is a hero; don't worry; you're not cheering a bad man."

The "patriot and a hero" rhetoric is equally dangerous -- and just as easily refuted. To many, Adolf Hitler was a patriot and a hero in his life; to some, he still is. Now apply that to Saddam Hussein, Robert Mugabe, Benito Mussolini, Fidel Castro and whoever else. As a wise man said, patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. That's not to say that Wallace was necessarily a sadist, a bigot, a tyrant or whatever else (again, I don't know enough to comment), but that definitions like "hero" and "patriot" are relative, and mean markedly different things to different people. Clearly, owed to an appalling death -- barbaric legalised torture and murder -- Wallace has become a martyr. Any criticism of a martyr can easily be taken as denigration.

Is terrorism justified? In and of itself, no. Innocent people should NEVER be killed. If someone has a beef with the people in power, they should target those people and those people alone. Even that fills me with moral dread, but at least you can see a limited rationale behind targeting, say, a right wing fascist regime, which was a very powerful point previously raised by someone in here. If you have no political voice and no platform to project one, what options do you have? Maybe one or two, but I haven't walked a mile in anyone else's shoes, so I wouldn't like to judge. Someone like Martin Luther King was a brilliant man, clearly, but he was operating in a democratic society and made appeals to egalitarian sentiments. In less civilised countries with little or no democratic infrastructure, peaceful protest isn't merely not logical, but often, if not always, impossible.

[sesame]

Originally Posted by TheSkronkDonkey

Is terrorism justified? In and of itself, no. Innocent people should NEVER be killed. If someone has a beef with the people in power, they should target those people and those people alone.

Thats exactly my point. If you have a grudge on someone, fight him alone. Not just anyone from his country! Why spill innocent blood?

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Blind Harry's poem which you cite as your source is a sack of shit, it's overblown scottish jingoist propaganda.

Now, lets start off with a few points, firstly, Wallace was a rich cunt, not some poor boy made good who led the people, he was a fucking fat cat lord, and the scottish king John Balliol was also a rich landowner who owned most of his lands in france and england, and was probably born in either france or england, he only became scottish king because he inherited a huge amount of land there.

The situation was that the scottish kingship had come into dispute with both Robert Bruce (grandpa of hte famous one) and John Balliol and severals minor claimants all claiming kingship, the scottish lords feared Bruce and Balliol would cause a civil war, and so appealed to Edward I of England to settle the dispute, this led to a huge arbitraion process with John Balliol eventually being voted the winner by the 103 arbitrators. However before the process began, Edward told the scottish them must accept him as being above the authority of hte scottish king, which they eventually did as they had no choice.

What happened next is the important part, basicly Edward basicly lent on John Balliol to rule the way edward wanted, and Robert Bruce undermined all John Balliol's efforts to resist Edward in a cheap political move so he could get more power himself. This eventually led to Edward wanting scottish troops for his planned invasion of France. This led to hte scottish Allying with France against england and informing them of hte English plan to invade.

It was only a year later that the English learned the Scottish were planning an invasion, and so strengthen thier border defences, and demanded hte handover of scottish border castles.

Edward raised a militia in Newcastle and preparded for war, John Balliol did hte same, calling up scottish troops from his feudal lords, many of whom ignored him.

The English won the war and the scottish were all but defeated, Edward took hte Stone of Destiny from scone and and sent it to westminster. The Stone of Destiny to those who don't know is the stone on which the king of scotland is crowned.


Now, the English invaded in 1296, and Wallaces campaign began in 1297. Now of course all you Braveheart fans are of course labouring under the illusion that the English had been ruling over Scotland for years, and that they were poor colonial serfs, but this is not hte case, they had just lost a war that they took an equal part in starting.

Now we have a nice story there of wallace victory at sterling bridge and defeat at falkirk. Of course wallace never captured terretory in northern england, but engaged in raids, ie crossing hte border, attacking towns then withdrawing before the English defenders arrived, they never fought a battle in england, only attacked towns.


After Falkirk, Wallace fled, he went into hiding, where he remainded throughout hte rest of hte war, The scottish were defeated and after thier surrender, Wallace was caught, by a scottish knight loyal to Edward and was given hte standard treatment for a traitor.

Now note that Wallace did not have support from all hte scots, he was allied to the French, whereas other Scots believed they should negotiate peace with England. Englands invasion of France never happened, so scottish troops were never called up, and so scotlands war was largly pointless and most scotts agreed, they did not want to be Frances monkey, invading England to defend the French, while hte French never invaded England to defend Scotland.

Thus ends Wallaces story, but the war continued, with Bruce killing hte other claimant for the throne, John Comyn and finanly stopping the infighting betweene hte scottish factions. This led to an end of scottish claimants soliciting english support for their claim and meant Bruce could finally stop the political manipulations within hte scotts and win the war, with the decisive victory at Bannockburn.

This eventually led to the end of hte war and the sending to the pope of a declaration of Scottish Independance, and after the Murder of Edward II, his son Edward III made peace with Robert the Bruce,


However less than 10 years later there was another war with the scots, and they lost, ending with them keeping thier independance but having to pay a huge ransom for thier king, The English meanwhile began the 100 years war with France.


______________________________________________

Now as far as the poeple of scotland were concerned, it didn't really affect them, when they were being intimidated by thier feudal lords for thier taxes, it didn't matter to them where those taxes went, to the English or Scottish, king, (and note it still went to hte Scottish king, even under English rule), it was still the same rich Scottish cunt who was making them work and ruling over them, the only difference was to the rich cunt who he had to give his money too, and to hte cunts who might get to be top cunt, who started the whole thing, the rich cunts fighting over who got to be the cunt is charge was what began everything. It was the scottish nobles who invited the english king to get involved and he just did the same thing that they did, try and get his cut of the action.

As far as the poor scottish people were concened, when they fought were wallace they were just doning at they always did, fighting for some noble. If anyone's seen that Family guy flashback, the one where Wallace rallys the troops then Stewie comes on and ruins it by talking about taxes on abuttments to church lands. Stewies talk was closer to the real reason they were fighting as far as the Nobles were concerned, the scottish nobles could have stopped the whole thing if they had not tried to use Edward I to settle thier own power struggles.

___________________________________________


Oh and the Scottish opinion of Gibsons ridiculous recasting of Wallace as this stupid freedom fighter? Well, when someone erected a statue of Gibson as Wallace with the words braveheart and freedom written on it, the locals smashed it's face in during the night.


So boys please don't talk shit about war, becuase it's not about glory or any such shit, it's about power for hte cunts in charge, Wallace fought for hte Scottish rulling class, not hte scottish people. Neither the Scottish or English people benefited from hte war, only the rulling classes did, the remaining scottish nobles of course carving up even greater estates, Wallaces years in hiding were probably in France living it up while the common people were left to suffer.

i was finished with this, but you just wouldn't let it go would you, i think you are a gade A bull shitter.
"The Irish bit was my slip of keys" good slip of keys you missed scot and hit ir, thats easily done, why can't you just admit that you only knew what you'd seen in the film untill we started talking about it, then you went and cut and pasted a load of shit and tryed to pass it off as your own knowledge.

[sesame]

Dear Mr Delivery,
Where did I cut and paste it from? Until you prove it, you are the bullshitter. What is the difference between reading and knowing something and bullshitting? If they mean the same to you, then yes I am! I read, I know and then I write.
What difference does it make to know when I knew it? The fact still remains that Sir William Wallace was a hero and he was defending his country. Prove me wrong.
Even before your post in the terrorism thread, ila pointed out my mistake about calling Wallace Irish and I apologised in a separate post. I requested Shemale Sex Lover to correct the post but he erased my apology! Go ask him. I dont bullshit.



As, for ss-Anna, the only literary works found about Wallace are those of 15th century folk singer Blind Harry and 19th century poet and writer Sir Walter Scott.

His Brave Deeds: Kindly Read Exploits And Death Of William Wallace (Prose), "Hero Of Scotland" by the celebrated author Sir Walter Scott.
Also read, The Acts and Deeds of Sir William Wallace, Knight of Elderslie, by Blind Harry (15th century).

But I cant help if you refuse their authority on Wallace. I guess in your eyes only the twisted 'Righteous' version of the English historians stand true! How ironic! Why would the English remain truthful about Scottish history and it's Heroes, after oppressing them for centuries? Not only that, whichever country they have colonised, they have wiped out or undermined their culture and imposed the 'Noble English culture' upon it! Also note that the evidences I am talking about also include church records. But perhaps that is also bogus in front of your omniscient eyes? Also Sir Walter Scott was a no bullshit person. What do you have against him? Do the Scottish authors have no right to uphold and be proud of their Heroes?
If you would kindly remember, the fuss between William Wallace and the English officers started in the marketplace where Wallace was selling his load of Fish. So, how come you consider a Rich Lord to sell fish all by himself in a market? Scottish People gathered behing Wallace because he had guts, he had the courage to stand up against English Tyranny. Even for your bogus arguments sake, if I accept him as a rich man, (its an utter lie) does it undermine his brave deeds by a minuscule? He lead great battles all the same.

The Wallace Monument stands testimony to the fondness of the Scottish masses towards this 13th century hero. It was erected in 1869 AD near Stirling, Scotland. Anna dear do your homework with more care. Well tried, better luck next time, sister! Also, dont swear so much, it doesnt really add to your evidence. RDelivery, you dont know how to argue at all!