William Wallace

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.

William Wallace went to dundee high and that's why theres a house called Wallace house

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 even though he lost his last battle at fallkirk, in 1298, he influenced the Scottish culture and laws. He influenced patriotism, a unheard of action in the time, in Scottish culture by persevering in the Scottish rebellion and loving his country so much that he would give up his life. He also influenced the declaration of arbroath, the Scottish declaration of independence, through his determination to secure the freedom of Scotland.

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