The strange story of Sir William Wallace

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.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

ok, well would you say that Henry VIII was a freedom fighter because he defeated the Scottish invasion of England? Can you say that William of Orange was a freedom fighter because he freed England from the Scottish king James VII?

Go on, tell me with a straight face that that Henry the Eighth was a freedom fighter.

[sesame]

Let me learn about them first. I am not so well endowed in History as you are, Anna.

You are always so angry (why though?),
but you argue really well.

[sesame]

Edward 1 of England had already occupied Scotland and trying to curb the rights of the Scots and engage them in war with other states for personal gain. Also, Edward 1 was nothing but an usurper and a real fiend. Even English historians agree. So, Wallace on trying to rid Scotland of this Edward menace, had indeed served as a freedom fighter.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Certain things piss me off, and FUCKING MEL GIBSON is one of them. I'd love to smash his face in and then repeatedly dunk it in a bucket of brine.

I really hate that film Braveheart and the stupid view of Wallace it encourages. I happen to be of Scottish, English and Welsh ancestry, and so it really grind my fucking gears when chumps glorify the fighting between the British nations, I'm all for unity, (better for fighting those Frogs n Krauts ) and when foreigners start reinterpreting our historical figures, it really pisses me off.