The strange story of Sir William Wallace

[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.

[sesame]

I like Mel Gibson (and most of his films) and dont look at him or anybody for that matter with racial contempt. Racism is quite a stupid notion. Anyway, I dont wanna incur your Artemis-like wrath.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Originally Posted by sesame

I like Mel Gibson (and most of his films) and dont look at him or anybody for that matter with racial contempt. Racism is quite a stupid notion. Anyway, I dont wanna incur your Artemis-like wrath.

Mel Gibson is a fucking racist, anti-Semitic, bastard, he is exactly the sort of person that should be hated.

[hankhavelock]

Originally Posted by SluttyShemaleAnna

Certain things piss me off, and FUCKING MEL GIBSON is one of them...

yeah, he actually is an annoying fella... I dig it :-)