William Wallace rebelled because Scottish independence was threatened by the English Edward I and William wanted to protect it.

The tactics employed by Wallace were similar to what you could call 'Terrorist Tactics' today. The main reason was that Wallace, being only a minor knight, was unable to call many men to his banner, so guerrilla tactics were employed to carry out successful opposition.

yes. Prince Eward II is William Wallace's child because he had an affair with Princess Isabella the french princess who was married to King Eward I. She had the child a few months after William Wallace's death.

The above statement is FALSE.

Isabelle of France didn't give birth to Edward II, she was MARRIED TO HIM. Edward I (often referred to as "longshanks") was Father of Edward II, who married the French Princess Isabelle, but not until long after Wallace had been executed and two years after the death of Longshanks. Contrary to "Braveheart", she never met, let alone had a relationship with, either man.

Because Edward I of England said he had commited treason. But Wallace had never taken an oath of allegiance to Edward I. The real reason was that Wallace was too dangerous. Edward thought that with Wallace out of the way, Scotland would be easier to subdue. He was wrong.

Unknown. No portrait of Wallace was ever made during his lifetime.

However, it is most likely that he had short-ish hair, as was the fashion among most nobility of Scotland and England at the time.

William Wallace's father was called Alan Wallace and he died because he went out to fight the English and the the English killed him and William was back at the camp when all of this was happening and when William found out he was so depressed and the he worked for the English and the he betrayed him for what they done to his family and then that is why William Wallace is so famous for fighting the English hand for his revolting death.

in the 13th century everyone was quite religious, but Wallace was alleged to have been trained as a monk by his uncle by the chronicler Barbour

and in his guardianship of Scotland he influenced the election of Bishop Lamberton to the diocese of St Andrews

when he raided northern England he also burnt alot of monastic houses, at first glance it would appear that this was a very religious at all. But at this time the Church is Scotland was under threat of being absorbed into the arch diocese of York as there was no kingdom of Scotland and hence no king to prevent that.

If the church was absorbed they would of had to pay tithes (church taxes) to York and the Scottish Bishops would of lost the powers of direct appeal to the pope witch had made them very powerful, indeed the Church was one of the most influential bodies in Scotland perhaps more so then the Bruce or Comyn factions.

In 1286 2 of the 6 Guardians were senior members of the clergy

So Wallace was destroying parts of the English church because he hated them due to his loyalty to the Scottish church from his uncle.

Robert the Bruce is one of the most important people in Scottish History. Scotland's most famous victory over the English at the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314 was led by Robert the Bruce.

Unlike in the film Braveheart, Wallace didn't use a claymore. The weapons he'd of used would be; a single-handed broadsword (medieval), a medieval dagger, a medieval shield and possibly a battle axe, a spear or even a bow and arrows. His armour would've been mail (chainmail).

William Wallace was influenced by his upbringing in Scotland, which was at the time facing English oppression. He was also inspired by the stories of Scottish heroes and the desire for freedom. Additionally, his experiences witnessing the atrocities committed by the English soldiers further fueled his determination to fight for Scottish independence.

He was a Scottish hero who, among other things, defeated the English at the Battle of Stirling Bridge in 1297.

I'm assuming this is a Braveheart thing?

There's very little evidence that the two men ever met. Braveheart is a good film, but it's just a film, not a historical documentary. The story is completely inaccurate.

The first battle of Falkirk involved William Wallace in 1298.

William VincentWallace

Mel Gibson

The English saw him as an outlaw, a murderer, the perpetrator of atrocities and a traitor.

No, it is unlikely that the two ever even met.

Sir William Wallace was 6 feet 7 inches tall.

No, in real-life the two people never met.

Sir William Wallace was hanged, drawn and quartered by the English at Smithfield in London. His remains were taken to Newcastle, Berwick, Aberdeen and Stirling, so there was no grave.

In the 1950s some Scots built a small monument to Wallace which is at Smithfield on the back wall of St. Bart's hospital. This is the closest thing to a grave.


See the link below for pictures.

William Wallace 1272-1305

Robert the Bruce 1274-1329

William Wallace led a revolt against the occupation forces of King Edward I of England's occupation army in Scotland. When captured by the English forces, he was hanged as a traitor.

His arms don't personally appear of the 'Ragman Rolls' in which Scots Lords gave approval to the occupation, although those of several other 'Walyes' do. Wallace was a minor lord so it's likely that one of the aforementioned were his feudal superior and thus spoke for the whole family.

No, William Wallace was a Scottish rebel who fought against the English. If you have any problems YouTube Horrible Histories William Wallace :)

we dont know there is no sign of children in his history

William Wallace did have children, but no one is sure with whom. The writer of BraveHeart Randall Wallace made a visit to Scotland, and discovered a huge statue of a man named William Wallace. He questioned why this man had his last name and did lots of research and had found that he was a direct descendant from William Wallace.