The strange story of Sir William Wallace

[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!

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

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.

[sesame]

I didnt compare his life with that of Jesus. His unjust trial and torture reminded me of that of Jesus.

10) ...In the hall of the trial, Wallace was crowned with oak leaves and mocked as the king of the Outlaws!
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!

If Sir William Wallace was not fighting to regain some dignity for his country, to free her from the Tyranny of the usurper Edward 1, what was he fighting for? For fun perhaps? If he was not a freedom fighter what was he, a soldier for hire?

"Just because he was not poor, he couldnt be a Hero or a Martyr." This line of thinking is totally devoid of valid reasoning. Wallace's ancestors were regarded as "noblemen', but that is debated as are his actual date of birth or his place of origin (Elderslie, Johnstone debatable???). Here opinion is divided. Some describe him as of humble origin and some of nobility. The Statue at Wallace Monument was built around 1869 and Wallace was from 1305. So do you really think that the real Wallace gave sittings for the sculptors?


But with your opinion that tries to make a freedom struggle look like a personal war of a few selfish nobles, I cant agree. I think you should appreciate his valour and give him due credit.

poor scottish people were concened, when they fought were wallace they were just doning at they always did, fighting for some noble

All arguments aside, Anna, its a rare pleasure to debate with you. I respect your intelligence.