Who is the better warrior Shaka Zulu or William Wallace?

Answer 1

Of course, the question is unanswerable in any objective sense. But between the two, Shaka Zulu is certainly the more notable strategic military innovator.

In reorganizing the traditional Zulu army, and in upgrading the systematic use of mobile supply lines, Shaka Zulu created (comparatively) enormous standing armies that completely swept away tribal rivals, ushering in an era of violently brutal war in southern Africa. As a ruthless leader, Shaka Zulu completely transformed the culture of war in the area. What had once been a ceremonial act of violence to settle disputes became an overtly opportunistic weapon for territorial domination. Over the course of ten years, Shaka Zulu's unceasing warfare may have killed over 2 million people.

William Wallace's infantry succeeded brilliantly in defeating a much larger English army at the Battle of Stirling Bridge, and (rare for a battle of the time) demonstrated that cavalry wasn't always the most powerful force on the board. But his success was based in part on the English army crossing the bridge in a piecemeal fashion, allowing the Scottish troops the breathing room to defeat the army bit by bit. A year later, at Falkirk, Wallace was soundly and convincingly defeated.

A fairer comparison would be to compare Shaka Zulu with other empire builders like Napoleon (a roughly contemporary figure) or Ghengis Khan. William Wallace should be compared to medieval generals like the Sire of Coucy, or to guerrilla warfare tacticians like Jubal Early.