Talk:William Wallace/Archive 4

Wallace's Height

I always wondered why being tall is considered dubious. You must substantiate the claim of dubiety or I will be undoing, or elaborating on the edit. I personally find the idea of Sir William Wallace being short or average height to be dubious. The Scotichronican states "He was a tall man with the body of a giant, cheerful in appearance with agreeable features, broad-shouldered and big-boned, with belly in proportion and lengthy flanks, pleasing in appearance but with a wild look, broad in the hips, with strong arms and legs, a most spirited fighting-man, with all his limbs very strong and firm".

The Scotichronicon was not contemporary but then....neither are many of the Wallace sources. Since all sources which target his height claim that he was tall rather than average, we cannot allow claims of average or short height to stand when no source exists to support it.

At the very least you could explain why you find it dubious. I admit there is no contemporary evidence stating he was tall. But there is no contemporary evidence that he was average so the burden of proof is on you. Please verify. TheBourtreehillian14:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I was not involved in the edits you mention, but am interested in the debate arising from them. I would agree with you that most contemporary/early references to Wallace seem to present him as a big man, but whether such subjective comments could ever be translated to actual measurements is another matter. Medieval men and women were only marginally shorter than their modern counterpart. The average height of an urban Englishman was 5'8" (1.72m). A woman was on average 5'2" (1.58m). (and the the well-nourished knightly classes would exceed this average). (ref: Clark, John (Ed). The Medieval Horse and its Equipment: c.1150-c.1450, Rev. 2nd Ed, UK: The Boydell Press, 2004, p 25) Edward I of England was over 6'. The commonly touted height for Wallace is 6'6", extraplolated mainly from the size of the Wallace Sword. Two major problems with this: there is considerable debate about whether the sword is his (so any height judgements can only ever be speculation) but, actually more importantly, such a judgement is based on a misunderstanding of fighting with long swords. Any untrained man picking up a sword would probably find it impossible to wield (see discussion earlier) but anyone of average size who had trained with weapons (as Wallace had) would easily manage a sword of that length (see Sword Forum essay). Short of locating his quartered body and measuring his reassembled skeleton, we will never know. But does it matter? This article need not say more than 'frequently described by early documents as a tall man...'. Gwinva 01:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well and good,,,,but none of the 'Wallace swords' have any connection to the man. Massive 2-handers were unknown on the 14C battlefield. —Preceding unsigned comment added by81.129.168.34 (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The earliest and oldest documents ONLY describe him as a tall man. When his stature was analysed by later chroniclers, they all agree that he was large. My objection was that NO early document refers to a average sized Wallace and so the declaration of dubiety is in itself dubious and so I requested some evidence (knowing fully that it will not be forthcoming). The physical attributes of Wallace derive mainly from the early chronicles AND NOT from the sword and I can only agree that to use the sword as an indicator is absurd. The user simply inserted the word DUBIOUS in the body of the article (which could almost be described as vandalism since it supplied no source for such an attitude - imagine I wondered through wiki typing the word DUBIOUS with no supporting evidence into articles written by people who know better). It is just speculation, but it is speculation based on several points of documentary evidence. The suggestion that he was of average build is supported by nothing. As to whether or not it matters, I can only say that his legendary fame is partly based on his legendary stature. I have already removed the offending section so please feel free to include the sentence you suggested at the end of your comment. You could exclude the word FREQUENTLY since all documents which mention his height speak EXCLUSIVELY of his great stature. Thank you for your input.TheBourtreehillian 02:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not mean to imply any documents suggested he was average, but rather the 'frequently' and 'most' was because not all documents mention his height. (Giggle as I think of some dry legal tome saying "and To William Wallace, giant, I leave four head of cattle"), and also to cover the (extremely likely) possibility that I am not aware of all the writings about Wallace. So, that is a roundabout way of saying absolutely, I agree with your statement that those documents that describe his stature claim it was large, and there is no evidence to suggest that he was an average man (then or now: since the modern UK average is still only 5'9"-5'10"). My poorly concluded height analysis above was supposed to indicate he must be at least 6 foot for anyone to have described him as tall, and could quite possibly have been 6'6" (why anyone thought that dubious, I don't know..probably from a common misconception that Medieval men were significantly shorter than their modern counterparts) and, for all we know, might have been 6'8"...or anything else someone wants to speculate. He was large..YES. That was part of his legend..YES (vitally important..we're talking about an age when men were hard, when physique and physical prowess was everything...his stature contributed to him becoming a hero-figure, in the way great sportsmen are today. To present such an image does not require a speculative measurement, which can never be substantiated. (IE. the speculation is regarding the precise height, not the FACT he was a large, well-proportioned, athletic, strong warrior.) Gwinva 02:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Gwinva

Dear Gwinva, I found your comments about Wallace to be impressive. Please don't put yourself down and please blame me for your sudden fall in self assurance. It was not my intention. I agreed with everything you said. Keep up the good work and please...you are welcome to comment on Wallace any time because you are clearly qualified to do so. I was delighted to see someone trying to blow away the myth of medieval man's stature. Anyone who knows the height of Edward I is a good guy or gal in my books. Any frustration you detected was due to the previous edit and not yours, which was nothing but extremely helpful. I apologise if I was a bit brusque. It was not directed at you.TheBourtreehillian 11:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Descendents (Again)

If Wallace had a son it would be an extremely relevant and interesting fact that merits a full section of its own. Not just an after thought tagged on at the end of one. Unfortunately, there does not appear to be any reputable historian willing to make such a claim, and hence no cites available. So additions to the article claiming existence of a son are going to keep getting removed until this happens. I'm not holding my breath. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

All edits by Shikakazunara are just plain vandalism and should be reverted on sight. He added the same garbage to other articles that have naught to do with William Wallace. He's just looking for attention. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Romanticized Image

I see a lot of debate about Wallace's height, weight, weapon of choice, etc. in this talk page, and would like to point out a quote from the movie Braveheart, when Gibson says "...and shoot lightning bolts from his arse", or something along those lines. Now I am not saying Braveheart is accurate in any way, but am simply referencing it to make the point that Sir William Wallace has been greatly exaggerated. In regards to his sword which is supposedly 5'6" or something along those lines, please remember that it is very possible that many people in Scotland may have somewhat distorted facts, in order to create a greater sense of pride in the people's background as Scots. Now, there are even many who go so far as to say it is possible that William Wallace never existed, but I won't get into that, in order to avoid pissing off some of the Wallaces who may enjoy editing this page. Sandwiches99 01:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem with William Wallace is that too much discussion of him cofuses the *real* William Wallace who lived and breathed and died horribly in London, with the William Wallace created by Blind Harry in his poem The Wallace in the 1440s and then subsequently portrayed by Gibson on Braveheart. There is doubt that the *real* William Wallce existed and equally there is no doubt that Blind Harry created a fantastic figure in his poem which had little connexion with the real Wallace. The Wallace of the poem was an exaggeration and his deeds has been exaggerated ever since. Any discussion of Wallace which is based on Harry's poem is meaningless.--Jaygtee 10:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

We as historians know nothing about William really, about two years of his life are known, the rest is confined to the memories of those who were there. Gavin Scott (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

small and brief agreement and a bundle of facts

It is true that there is much discussion about his stature but since no source indicates he was average or small, we can only conclude that the belief that he was of average or smaller built is the silly one. Academics agree that the sword on display was not his, so any discussion about its measurements is futile. While it is undoubted that "many people in Scotland may have somewhat distorted facts" there is absolutely no doubt that the people of England have done the same. And the USA. And India. And China. And...everywhere. That 'distortion' is called 'history'. History is never completely accurate. It reflects more about the teller than it does about the truth.

As for 'getting into' the possibility that he never existed, I would love to see you try. His pockets were emptied on his execution and the contents still survive. His execution was witnessed by hundreds of Londoners and was recorded in early English records. The charter given to the tradesmen of Lubeck also survives and bore the names of Wallace and Moray. A document giving him protection from the king of France was also found on his person before his execution.

Lubeck Letter in Scottish Parliament

TheBourtreehillian 19:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Expert attention

This article mixes fact and fiction in a confused way, which is possibly a reflection of some genuine problems with the historiography of Wallace. I have attempted to disentangle some of this, but it would help to have an expert look at this. PatGallacher(talk) 10:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I am in total agreement with this; the article needs to be rewritten from the ground up, with the historical facts segregated from the pseudo-history which was produced by Blind Harry and subsequently transferred on to filem by Mel Gibson. It's a big job, and I'm not sure a lot of people would like the finished product.Jaygtee (talk) 10:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think what would be helpful is to compile on this talkpage a list of books and resources, which deal with the real William Wallace and reject fantasy and fiction. The article on Robert I of Scotland needs a similar makeover. I'm not sure what we could do to stop the pseudo-history Braveheart fans from simply continuing to add fiction to this article for eternity, its tedious. Perhaps we could have two articles, one named William Wallace (fiction)? or can all the fiction be simply moved to the Braveheart article? - True as Blue (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a problem, but I don't think separate articles are the answer. The mythology around Wallace belongs on this article as much as the facts. It just needs to be clearer which is most likely to be which.

Creating two articles may only cause disagreement, with editors moving events between the articles to reflect their view of what is fact and what is fiction. There are also plenty of details in the uncertain grey area in between. Fact and 'elaborations' are often intertwined in what is known about many historical figures, but you don't see fictional articles on other historical figures. (Or do you? I can't recall any.) Would in not be better to split the article according to source, with the veracity of each clearly noted, and whether disputed or not? This makes it easier for the reader to decide what bits are fact, what are bits no-one can be certain of, and what bits are tall-tales.

Certainly, anything referencing Braveheart should be removed on sight, mercilessly, without exception. But Braveheart is not the proper place to record information not directly relating to the film. --Escape Orbit^(Talk) 17:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Biography C class

I notice the article has been demoted from B class to C class. Is this because there is insufficient evidence for most of his life? How on earth can this be improved if there is no more to write, unless some new historical documents are found, which though possible is highly unlikely. Should it not be classed on the way the information on hand has been written rather than the size of the biography which is never going to get much larger than it is now? Jack forbes (talk) 12:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I would expect the demotion is more a reflection of the issue identified above. A confusing mixture of known fact and fanciful fiction.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I would imagine the fanciful fiction should be removed from the article. It may result in a much smaller but more accurate article. I believe you have been around for a while Escape Orbit, I wonder if you know of a free for use photo of the Wallace seal which was discovered in 1999 as shown here which was attached to the Lubeck letter. Jack forbes (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps using the movie Braveheart will help. Err no, it wouldn't. GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

He he, yeah, we'll just write to Hollywood. Any other good ideas GoodDay? Jack forbes (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it has actually been "demoted" to C class. C-Class is a new class instituted in just the last couple of months to cope with the fact that B is very broad. "C" is basically a "Low B"; so the article has been classified to more clearly show where it lies, rather than actually demoted. The community feeling was that the MilHist B class criteria was an appropriate yardstick: that B class articles require a good level of: referencing and citation; coverage and accuracy; structure; grammar and supporting materials. You can see more by clicking on the MilHist assessment in the banner above. I agree with the assessment that this needs work to reach B. However, don't be put off by the lack of materials/ sources: if you make use of what you have, you could still bring this up to FA, with work. But I do think it needs to be rewritten from the bottom up, writing from reputable sources. I watch this to remove the worst vandalism, (it seems a magnet) but it does get filled with fanfiction, Braveheart nonsense and the assumptions of the barely knowledgeable. The best way to discourage this is to provide a well written article which analyses the facts and the myth. Gwinva (talk) 19:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I may give it a go some time in the future. I have numerous books on Wallace which I would have to go through again. If I do, I will write it up in my sandbox and perhaps ask you to have a look at it if you have the time. Jack forbes (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Writing in a sandbox is a good idea. Let me know when you start and I'll see what I can contribute. I have a few more general works which might prove useful. Gwinva (talk) 22:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the "numerous" books would be a problem; the problem here is that there's so much stuff been written. Sturgeon's Law. I went through the crap I had and added a list to the bottom of the article. The Cowan Wallace Book strikes me as the best thing to use where possible. Brown's Wars of Scotland would be good for background. And Fisher's biog is apparently the best liked general book. The rest is just decorative. And there's a wheen of decoration can be added because people have been writing assiduously about Wallace for the last couple of centuries.

I thought about a sandbox version as well, but I can't see that working. I think we'll need to do this live, otherwise you'll put peoples noses out of joint. If it takes 500 edits, so what? There's no deadline. If you want my opinion, and if you'd don't you should have run away before because you're too late now, I suggest starting by thinking about the big picture. How long should it be? Should it be split into multiple articles like Joan of Arc? What does the article need to have and what's optional? It might be worth checking Fisher's piece on Wallace in the Oxford DNB. At 7500 words it's at least twice as long as we could get away with, but that's near enough that you can get an idea of the amount of space to devote to each section. Your mileage may vary, Angus McLellan (Talk)23:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I was half way out the door when you said it was too late! If you think it best to edit live then I would go along with that, I wouldn't want to put peoples noses out. I do think though that it almost has to be started from scratch. As for blind hary, I think we would need verification for many of his tales, otherwise I don't see the point of mentioning them all, we don't want the bulk of the article to fall into the makebelieve category. I think I will still go through my dusty old books, there are always little nuggets of information to be found. That's me, I'm off running again. :) Jack forbes (talk) 00:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

"Going live" is ok, but we'll need to have a severe pruning of the existing article first. It's probably best to chuck anything unreferenced. (And we need to be pretty strict on the references too: some just quote Hary as if he speaks fact.) As to length, Joan of Arc comparison: might as well keep it on one page to start. IF anything gets unwieldy, then it can be broken off later. I had a look at Fisher's DNB entry: it's a pretty good summary, so would make a good starting point. (Full length works contain so much information they can be hard to disseminate for the broad brush stuff.) It also offers a good outline, which we could emulate:

1. Early life: fiction and facts
2. The rebellion of 1297
3. The capitulation of Irvine (perhaps put these 2+3 together)
4. The battle of Stirling Bridge
5. The guardianship
6. The campaign of 1298
7. The battle of Falkirk (6+7 together?)
8. Attempts at diplomacy
9. Resistance renewed (8+9 together?)
10. Capture and death
11. Patriot and hero (this is the myth/stories/Braveheart stuff)

Might be worth thrashing out a rough structure and basic info in a sandbox, so we can see where we're going; once we're happy that'll work, it can get wrapped around the existing (pruned) article for live action. (The DNB entry can be accessed online if you have a UK library card.) Gwinva (talk) 08:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps an analysis of the accuracy (or otherwise) of Blind Harry's account could be placed on his page, and then just a brief summary here?? Gwinva (talk) 08:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Welsh/Brython origins

The speculative first paragraph of the "origins" section is very problematic, and should probably be deleted until more definitive sources can be found for these so-called origins. The only sentence in that paragraph that is beyond question is the first: "There is little which is certainly known of William Wallace's immediate family." The question of whether "Welsh" or "Brython" should be used is secondary to the larger question of the truth of these claims. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You are insinuating that The Kingdom of Strathclyde was a Welsh Kingdom, This is nonsense Strathclyde was a British speaking Kingdom Yes! but to call it 'Welsh' is incorrect! Wales and welsh refer to the modern usage of the nation and its language. Strathclyde had been annexed to the Kingdom of Scotland for centuries before Wallace was born and to refer to him as a Welshman is inappropriate, He was born in Scotland! having been born in Strathclyde myself I think I know what I am talking about. Its akin to calling England a German Province —Preceding unsigned comment added by90.197.197.228 (talk) 09:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we don't need to talk about the surname at all. The sentence really just touches on the surname in Scotland, not on Wm's family. It'd seem that people regard his family as originating in Shropshire (close to the Welsh border). If there isn't a good ref that goes deeper into his family's ancestry than that maybe we should just leave it there and forget the general surname stuff.--Celtus (talk) 05:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

None of the papers in The Wallace Book seem to mention the Wallace family's origins, but Fisher and Barrow ("The Earliest Stewarts") mention their presumed Shropshire origins. I'm not sure that the Strathclyde Welsh stuff is relevant since nobody else joins these dots. Absent such a link in print, this would tend towards original research. Angus McLellan (Talk)11:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'm going to remove the sentence.--Celtus (talk) 06:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Dauvit Broun's article on the Welsh identity of the Kingdom of Strathclyde is relevant to this. I wonder why Wallace's name is given in Gaelic in the article? He wasn't a Gael and almost certainly didn't speak Gaelic. Why not give a version in Latin too? Barcud Coch(talk) 10:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you kidding!? Its highly unlikely that he didnt speak Gaelic as this was the majority language throughout Scotland at the time (it was even spoken by ethnic minorities such as Britons and English in the realm). 92.235.178.44 (talk) 10:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This is simply not the case. Gaelic was certainly the language of the North and West, but was certainly not the language of the rest of the country. The proposition of 'Britons and English' as minority groups is equally unsupportable...an editor elsewhere has already destroyed this nonsense once, is it really necessary to give it another outing? It is os course perfectly possible that Wallace could speak Gaelic, but there is no evidence that he did so and no reason to assume that he did. —Precedingunsigned comment added by 217.42.111.227 (talk) 00:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

"As a consequence of the outcome of the Wars of Independence though, the English-speaking people of Lothian who lived under the King of Scots had to accept Scottish identity. The growth in prestige of English in the 14th century, and the complementary decline of French in Scotland, made English the prestige language of most of eastern Scotland."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Scots_language

According to the above quoted Wikipedia article, the perception of "Inglis" as "scottis" really only emerges as a necessary contingency following anti English sentiment resulting from the Wars of Independance. Furthermore, it was the EAST that first felt the results of this change in linguistic and ethnic perceptions of who was "Scottish" and who was an ethnic minority within the realm. If Wallace was an "Inglisman/Gall or "Brython/Bretnach" within the context of 13th century/early 14th century renfrewshire/Ayrshire, as a West Coaster, he would have been seen as an ethnic minority nd not as a "Scot/Gael". The problem is that he dies at the beginning of the series of struggles that led to the change in perceptions of what made someone within the Kingdom of Scotland "ethnically Scottish". 92.235.178.44 (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Gaelic was a major language of Stirling, Dunfermline and Perth (as well as Ayrshire in the West)during Wallace's lifetime (and probably the major language in Elderslie and Glasgow, despite the Cumbric historic culture of Strathclyde). Why else would there be Gaelic names as far south as the Scottish borders and throughout the environs of Edinburgh and elsewhere in Lothian if there had been no Gaelic presence?92.235.178.44 (talk) 16:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

"In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the high point of the expansion of Gaelic as a language in Scotland, one could traverse the whole mainland of Scotland and find speakers of Gaelic in most corners, whether it be the Gaelic landowners of the Lothians like Colmán and Gille Mhuire who gave their names to Comiston and Gilmerton, or the Clydesdale serf belonging to Glasgow Cathedral, named Gille Mochaoi; or the serfs of the upper Tweed valley called Mac Cormaig and Maol Mhuire; or the men of Norse lineage but Gaelic speech who were becoming the political hard-men of the western coast and the Hebrides, men with names like Raghnall and Somhairle." 92.235.178.44 (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

http://www.bord-na-gaidhlig.org.uk/about-gaelic/history.html

92.235.178.44 (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

In the Robert the Bruce article it states

"Buoyed by his military successes, Bruce's forces also invaded Ireland in 1315, to free the country from English rule, and to open a second front in the continuing wars with England. The Irish even crowned Edward Bruce as High King of Ireland in 1316. Robert later went there with another army to assist his brother.

To go with the invasion, Bruce popularised an ideological vision of a "Pan-Gaelic Greater Scotia" with his lineage ruling over both Ireland and Scotland. This propaganda campaign was aided by two factors. The first was his marriage alliance from 1302 with the de Burgh family of the Earldom of Ulster in Ireland; second, Bruce himself on his mother's side of Carrick, was descended from Gaelic royalty - in Scotland. Thus, lineally and geopolitically, Bruce attempted to support his anticipated notion of a pan-Gaelic alliance between Scottish-Irish Gaelic populations, under his kingship.

This is revealed by a letter he sent to the Irish chiefs, where he calls the Scots and Irish collectively nostra nacio (our nation), stressing the common language, customs and heritage of the two peoples:

“ Whereas we and you and our people and your people, free since ancient times, share the same national ancestry and are urged to come together more eagerly and joyfully in friendship by a common language and by common custom, we have sent you our beloved kinsman, the bearers of this letter, to negotiate with you in our name about permanently strengthening and maintaining inviolate the special friendship between us and you, so that with God's will our nation (nostra nacio) may be able to recover her ancient liberty."

Seeing as how this was after the lifetime of Wallace, it is clear evidence of Gaelic still being perceived as the common language shared between Scotland and Ireland.

92.235.178.44 (talk) 18:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

A quick browsing of anons other edits, should be kept in mind here. He seems to regard the term Gaelic as synonymous with "Trotskyism" and his proliferation of Scottish Gaelic as a language on the English Language Wikipedia (particularly in places where it isn't significant) seems to be very much in that context. Whether the Norman land owner and feudal lord William Wallace spoke "Gaelic" or not needs to be sourced. It certainly doesn't seem to have been his native tongue, so I can't see why such a translation would be relevent in an English language encyclopedia article on him. Regarding his language, all I have been able to find is this from "William Wallace: guardian of Scotland" on page 47;

"I conceive that there can be no doubt that his mental culture was at least as great as would be that of a person in a corresponding position at the present day.... Sir William Wallace at least knew how to read and write three languages-namely, his own, Latin and French; and it appears also that he knew Gaelic. He knew the ancient and modern history and the common simpler mathematics and science of his own day."

This seems to suggest he was a native Scots speaker not a Gael. - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

THANKS FOR THE CONFIRMATION SOURCE YORKSHIRIAN :-D

Hello Yorkshirian. Thanks for backing me up by offering a citation of William Wallace speaking Gaelic (or Scottis as it was still known even in Berwick at the time.) Im glad you decided to agree with my contradiction of him not speaking Gaelic lol. Cheers92.235.178.44 (talk) 23:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Eh. The source says it appears that he may have also spoken Gaelic, but it does not say that it was his native tongue, in fact it speaks of "his own" language quite separate (presumably Scots since he was from the Lowlands, where there is no real evidence outside of woaded gnat fantasy that the general populance were Gaelic speakers). Though since we have solid confirmation that he spoke Latin and French, perhaps these irrelevent translations should be in the article intro too. Keep in mind this is the English Language Wikipedia, only designed to be used for people who understand English, anyone who reads and/or wishes to write in Gaelic can do so on its own specific Wikipedia. en.wikipedia isn't here to teach people critically endangered languages on off-topic articles.- Yorkshirian (talk) 03:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

My dear Yorkshirian, that map is often used in Gaelic classes (which are well attended and highly popular with Germans amongst other visitors to Scotland and are available in the Borders region near to Berwick according to some adverts Ive seen recently!) to demonstrate which language was called the Scottish one nearly a hundred years following the death of Uilleam Uallas. The notion of "the Lowlands" was still very vague at the time of Bannockburn, let alone when Wallace was growing up, and it it quite possible that he hailed from a certain Ellerslie in Ayrshire, and not (as is supposed) Elderslie near Paisley in Renfrewshire, in which case, he may have been a native Gaelic speaker as Galloway was Gaelic speaking until after Culloden and its influence spread Northwards and eastwards. Again, thanks for your contribution of the map. It demonstrates that nearly a century after the life and death of Wallace, "Scottis" meant "Gaelic" whilst simoultaneously and regrettably failing to show if he was or wasnt a Gaelic speaker and/or what was being spoken (and not spoken)in 1305 or before. ,p92.235.178.44 (talk) 07:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

In the Gàidhealtachd article it states... "History

Until a few centuries ago, the Gàidhealtachd would have included much of modern day Scotland north of the Firth of Forth ,excepting the Northern Isles, as evidenced by the prevalence of Gaelic derived place names throughout Scotland, and contemporary accounts. These include Dundee from the Gaelic Dùn Deagh, Inverness from Inbhir Nis, Stirling from Sruighlea, Argyll from Earra-Ghàidheal and Galloway from Gall-Ghaidhealaibh. Gaelic speakers from what would be considered traditionally English speaking/non-Gaelic regions today included George Buchanan from Stirlingshire, and Robert the Bruce and Margaret McMurray from Galloway and Ayrshire."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%A0idhealtachd

The notion of a Highlands and Lowlands contradicts the close alliance between Andrew Murray (a Scottis speaker from the modern Highlands) and Wallace (a "Lowlander" by a similairly anachronistic definition!)

It is highly likely that as both leaders would have to communicate with each other and their soldiers from both North and South of the Stirling Bridge crossing, that they would have employed Gaelic/Scottis, as their Lingua Franca. Just a thought. 92.235.178.44 (talk) 08:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

According to John Macinnes, Gaelic oral traditions have treated William Wallace as a native Gaelic speaker:

"It may be remarked that in modern Gaelic oral tradition Bruce and Wallace are both represented as native Gaelic speakers; and although this is sometimes demonstrably based upon (or reinforced by) English-language sources, tradition bearers will cite it as evidence of the predominance of Gaelic at one time in Scottish history, and,by implication, of the reality of a Gaelic scotland."

(p.8 Dùthchas nan Gàidheal: selected essays of John MacInnes)

We Know that both Baliol and Bruce were Gaelic speakers (and that Bruce at least was probably a native Gaelic speaker), and seeing how the last Gaelic speaking community in Ayrshire only dissapeared in the 18th century and Renfrewshire is not so far away, the onus is really on anyone who would claim that he didnt speak Gaelic/Scottis, to offer some evidence for this. 92.235.178.44(talk) 00:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hero or Savage?

I was just wondering if anyone knew if any historians have debated over the argument of whether he was a savage or a hero? —Preceding unsigned comment added by220.233.169.176 (talk) 10:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Are the two necessarily mututally exclusive? —Preceding unsignedcomment added by 86.175.67.66 (talk) 14:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

did Wallace really have an affaire with queen Margrette?

I just want to make sure that what has been montioned in <brave heart> concerning Wallace's relation with queen Margrette is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by41.221.17.212 (talk) 09:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

No. Braveheart is historically nonsense. --Escape Orbit^(Talk) 20:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Braveheart's nonsense isn't even consistent. It portrays Wallace having an affair with Princess Isabella (not Queen Margrette), who was ten when Wallace died, and still living in France. Do NOT take your history from Hollywood films. Braveheart is just a made up story where the characters are given the same names as people who once lived. There the similarity ends. You can enjoy it (if you want) as a fun story, but do not confuse it with fact. Gwinva (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)