William Wallace

William Wallace was born in the year 1270, though the exact date of his birth is not recorded. He is best known as a Scottish knight and a leader during the Wars of Scottish Independence against England. Wallace's legacy has made him a symbol of Scottish resistance and national pride.

Yes, Sir William Wallace was married. He was married to Marion Braidfute, who is often mentioned in historical accounts and legends surrounding his life. Their marriage is believed to have been a significant part of his personal life, especially in the context of his fight for Scottish independence. However, details about their relationship are somewhat limited and often romanticized in folklore.

William Wallace was executed on August 23, 1305, in London. He was subjected to a brutal execution method known as hanging, drawing, and quartering. After being hanged nearly to death, he was disemboweled and then beheaded. His remains were subsequently divided into four parts and displayed in different locations as a warning to others.

William Wallace's hatred for the English primarily stems from their oppressive rule over Scotland during the late 13th century. After witnessing the brutality of English forces, including the execution of his loved ones and the subjugation of his people, Wallace became a symbol of resistance against tyranny. His deep-seated anger was further fueled by the desire for Scottish independence and the belief in the right of his people to govern themselves without foreign domination. This animosity is vividly portrayed in historical accounts and popular culture, particularly in the film "Braveheart."

If Sir William Wallace had not fought for Scottish independence, the struggle against English rule might have been delayed or taken a different form. Scotland could have remained more firmly under English control, potentially altering the course of Scottish identity and nationalism. Without his leadership and inspiration, subsequent figures in the independence movement may have emerged later or lacked the same fervor. Ultimately, the absence of Wallace's resistance would have significantly impacted the historical narrative of Scotland's fight for sovereignty.

Ah, William Wallace was a brave soul, wasn't he? While we may not know his exact favorite food, I like to think he enjoyed simple meals that warmed his heart after a long day of fighting for freedom. Perhaps a hearty stew or a crusty loaf of bread shared with good company by a crackling fire. Just imagine the comfort and strength he must have felt in those moments.

He decided it be impossible to carry the heavy burden of responsibility and to discharge my duties as King as he would wish to do without the help and support of the woman he loved.

Difficult question, it really is not know if Wallace was married or not,, even his own birth date is not certain and is quoted as being between 1260 and 1278.. However Marion Braidfute has been suggested.

William Wallace began fighting primarily in response to the oppressive rule of the English crown over Scotland, particularly under King Edward I. The heavy taxation, loss of Scottish autonomy, and brutal suppression of Scottish culture and rights fueled his desire for freedom. Wallace became a leader in the struggle for Scottish independence, rallying others to resist English domination and fight for their homeland. His actions were driven by a sense of justice and national pride, making him a symbol of resistance against tyranny.

William Wallace became a leader during the Wars of Scottish Independence in the late 13th century by emerging as a prominent figure in the resistance against English rule. His leadership was catalyzed by the oppressive policies of King Edward I of England, which sparked widespread discontent among the Scots. Wallace gained support by rallying local clans and using guerrilla tactics to achieve significant victories, most notably at the Battle of Stirling Bridge in 1297. His charisma and commitment to Scottish freedom inspired many to join his cause, solidifying his role as a national hero and symbol of resistance.

There was no Battle of Stirling, it was the Battle of Stirling Bridge.

There is no evidence that Wallace ever met Robert the Bruce or the French Princess.

William Wallace (AKA "braveheart") was captured by the English king, known as Edward the Long Shanks , tortured and eventually beheaded. I don't know if this next part is true but i have heard that his body was torn to peices his arms and legs sent to the 4 corners of England and his head set on London bridge as a warning to other "traitors". Though he did not live to see it Scotland did win its freedom...for a while at least.

Edward I (Longshanks) of England. He was only an outlaw as far as the English king was concerned. Not an outlaw in Scotland.

In man-to-man encounters, both men were brutally psychopathic killers; Wallace had terrorized southern Scotland for years as a professional thief and murderer before rehabilitating himself through alignment with the Scottish enemies of Edward I, and Shaka Zulu assassinated scores of rivals in his consolidation of power, in some cases feeding the friends and family members of his enemies to wild hyenas. Neither of the two made their reputations as common foot soldiers, so it might as well be a coin toss if you dropped them each into an arena armed with nothing but bone daggers. Shaka Zulu was certainly by far the more notable strategic military innovator, and had been a distinguished member of a Zulu regiment, while Wallace was a brutish, unprincipled thug. Both were sadists, but which would win in an unarmed hand-to-hand fight would mostly depend on which one was healthier at the time.

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.

That's bullshitting mother f@*k&$

The Wallace sword on display at the Wallace monument in Stirling weighs 2.7 kg. There are however doubts as to its authenticity.

William Wallace did not fight at Bannockburn. Wallace died in 1305. The Battle of Bannockburn was in 1314.

The year was 1305. That makes it the 14th century.

he is believed to be loaded because he was the second son of a minor noble but noone really knows.

3 that I know of. Stirling Bridge, Louden Hill (or was that Robert the Bruce) and the Bell O' The Brae.

William Wallace led a war for independence from England. The English will tell you they did not murder Wallace, rather they executed him for treason and atrocities against civilians during war.

I looked this up and came up with 5 ( there could be more). I found them in Sterling, Aberdeen ,Melrose, Bemersyde, and Ayrshire .

It is believed he was born in Elderslie, Renfrewshire, very little in known of his early life. His family however are of minor Norman nobility and were followers of Walter Fitzallan, High Steward of Scotland. Before coming to Scotland, they likely lived in Wales or Shorpshire in England. The family appear on the Ragman Rolls as 'Le Waleys'

This is news to me, as far as i know little is known of wallace and his early life, yet his family seem to have come from wales, unbelievable !

the story of William Wallace is very much like the film; you just remove every single little detail of story, scenery, dialogue, and a good bit of the characters, voila.

He didn't. Wallace was betrayed to the English by a Scots knight named Sir John De Menteith, who was said to have turned over a bannock (a bap or roll of bread) on a tavern table, a sign to the English that he (Wallace) was among them.