You are here: home > biography
William Wallace
How Scotland produced a warrior equal in ferocity and might to Edward I of England
Most Americans know William Wallace, the Scottish hero, as Braveheart, after the film of the same name starring Mel Gibson. Andrew Fisher in his historical examination of Wallace portrays the man more objectively. This is a difficult task since little is known of the man other than a few official records. One very biased source is Henry the Minstrel or Blind Harry who wrote The Wallace. The long poem in 12 books was published circa 1477, two centuries after Wallace’s execution.
The poem, in turn, draws heavily from a biography written by John Blair, a Benedictine monk who served as Wallace’s chaplain through much of the struggle with England. Both these works were written by Scots who had, in Wallace, a hero for Scotland to take great pride in. Their works inevitably justify the bad and glorify the good in this larger-than-life man; something Fisher’s work seeks to avoid.
William Wallace was born in the latter half of the 13th century to a landed and titled family who had been established for over a 100 years in Scotland by the time of his birth. He was born at a time of peace between Scotland and England. Alexander III was king of Scotland. While he reigned, Edward I was content to allow Scotland to remain a separate kingdom. Then in March 1286, Alexander died, leaving Scotland to his three-year old granddaughter then in Norway to rule his kingdom.
The actual ruling of Scotland fell to six men who became guardians of the realm. Two of them were William Fraser of St. Andrews and Robert Wishert of Glasgow, both bishops. With them were two of the earls of Scotland, Duncan of Fife and Alexander Comyn of Buchan. Finally, there were two men drawn from the ranks of barons, John Comyn of Badenoch and James the Stewart. But a mere four years later in 1290, seven-year-old Margaret died leaving the kingdom with no legitimate successor.
Within Scotland, John Balliol, lord of Galloway and Robert Bruce, lord of Annandale both claimed to be the rightful successor. The six guardians and the other nobles of Scotland appealed to Edward I, king of England to. "On 17 November 1292, at Berwick, Edward’s decision was read by his justice, Roger le Brabazon," writes Fisher. "Edward found the case (as heir to the throne of Scotland) for John Balliol proven. However, Fisher goes on to say, "There was no Scot strong enough to resist Edward."
From that point on Balliol was to prove a poor match for Edward as ruler of Scotland. On many occasions, Edward reversed Balliol’s judgements. From this point in the biography, the reader learns of the intrigues among the Scottish nobility, particular the Bruces, who harbored ambitions of one day replacing Balliol.
The one man within Scotland at this time willing to take on Edward in support of Balliol’s claim as ruler was William Wallace. Fisher concludes that very little is known of the origins of Wallace before his taking over the cause of Scotland against Edward. One official record implicates Wallace (William Le Waleys—the Welsh literally) of robbery. But the first act to put him into direct conflict with Edward Wallace’s killing of the English sheriff of Lanark, "the unspeakable William Heselrig" write Fisher.
Wallace kills Heselrig to avenge the Sheriff execution of Marion Braidfute, heiress of Lamington—Wallace’s wife or Mistress. How the outlaw William Wallace took up arms successfully against Edward when no one in Scotland was up to the task is the great mystery in Fisher’s view. Where did Wallace acquire the military skills to take on a formidable English army?
Fisher’s book details the successful and unsuccessful battle Wallace waged against Edward’s army. He details the atrocities on both sides, each equally inhumane. In the end, the reader gets a more realistic view of this great Scottish hero. He or she should also begin to understand why Scotland and England are two separate countries, each with their own history, united by a common sovereign.
|
i