Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org

Jimbo · This is Ma' Life! Joined: 18 Feb 2007 Posts: 628

Someone calling him/herself AM, Glasgow has just posted this link on The Scotsman website calling William Wallace a murdering thug.

http://www.waichung.demon.co.uk/william/guerrilla.htm

Neo Labour voter I suspect. Laughing

azzuri · 'Our Scotland' Fossil Joined: 12 Sep 2005 Posts: 3771

Well he was undoubtedly a bit of a psychopath and a bit of a thug - he did skin the Sheriff of Lanark alive then use his skin to make a belt from! And I suppose technically he was also a murderer - it's all about perspectives.

It really doesn't matter what people say about Wallace, a murdering thug is certainly not how he has been or will be remembered.
_________________
"Every single person on this planet is unique. Just like everyone else..." - Random Guy in Edinburgh Pub

Possibly the funniest site in the world, 'The Daily Mash' - http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/

Jimbo · This is Ma' Life! Joined: 18 Feb 2007 Posts: 628

Corby Boy · Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 7:43 am Post subject:

And Edward I wasn't a murdering thug? Gotta be viewed in the context of the time.

Wallace knew what he was about and his actions helped shape our nation.

William Wallace = Top Bloke.

fiferjohn · Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 1:02 pm Post subject:

he did what he had to so Scotland good be free. what about all the kings and queens are they murderers as well as they put a lot off people to death and quite long and tourgerous at that .that was what time required then and you have to take that into context. the duke of Sutherland i think it was kill every man woman and child in the highlands that they could find after culloden but i suppose that was being done for the union so it was ok i take it.
_________________
born Scottish not British death to the union

FreedomNow · Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 7:42 pm Post subject:

Although the Scots may have commited atrocities in the war, as did the English, they were fighting for a cause and these things happen in all wars.
_________________
I will never apoligise for my Scottish blood, my Scottish mind or my love for my nation. You will never kill our will to be free.

ALBA GU BRATH - SCOTLAND FOREVER
FOR A SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF ALBA

MAKE MONARCHY HISTORY

Morph · Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:29 am Post subject:

I dont think it is fair to be judging these acts, of the Scottish or English with a modern perspective. The acts carried out during this period were the ways wars were faught. Peasants were regarded as an underclass, this is why the sacking of Berwick was ok for Edward ( in his mind) and if Wallace wanted to get his point across he couldnt take it to an international court he had to do the same, eg skinning Lanark.
_________________
"An oppressive government is to be more feared than a tiger"

Jimbo · This is Ma' Life! Joined: 18 Feb 2007 Posts: 628

Sir William Heselrig, English Sheriff of Lanark was killed in his bed by Wallace. Wallace smashed into his house in the middle of night, rushed upstairs where Heselrig was abed and 'with a single downward stroke of his great sword, cleaving his skull right down to the collar bone.'
It was Hugh De Cressingham, Edward's hated and grossly obese treasurer in Scotland who the Scots skinned after the battle of Stirling Bridge. The Lanercost Chronicle states the Scots dried and cured his hide and 'of his skin William Wallace caused a broad strip to be taken from the head to the heel, to make therewith a baldrick for his sword.'
The Scalacronica merely states that 'the Scots caused him to be flayed, and in token of their hatred made thongs of his skin.'
Walter of Hemingburgh recorded 'The Scots flayed him and divided his skin among themselves in moderate-sized pieces, certainly not as relics, but for hatred of him.'

RFM · Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:01 am Post subject:

Hi Jimbo,
A great posting. Would you be so kind as to give the sources for the chronicles?
Thank-you!

Jimbo · This is Ma' Life! Joined: 18 Feb 2007 Posts: 628

FreedomNow · Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2007 1:02 am Post subject:

Just down the road from where my gran lives is the reputed spot where Wallace and his men burned the English garrison while all the soldiers were inside. Can't get much more brutal than that. Aparently it was in retaliation for the hanging of many Scots at the same garrison.
_________________
I will never apoligise for my Scottish blood, my Scottish mind or my love for my nation. You will never kill our will to be free.

ALBA GU BRATH - SCOTLAND FOREVER
FOR A SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF ALBA

MAKE MONARCHY HISTORY

crazydaisy · Finding Ma' Way Joined: 20 May 2008 Posts: 10

"Braveheart" is the only movie I have only ever seen my boyfriend cry at, the bit at the end where the Scottish guys win the battle Very Happy

azzuri · 'Our Scotland' Fossil Joined: 12 Sep 2005 Posts: 3771

Aventinian · Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 5:40 am Post subject:

Having been on this website for a considerable time, I probably shouldn't be shocked on my return to see the casual acceptance and defence of crimes that would turn any right-thinking person's stomach. Par for the course, so long as they're committed by a fellow Jock against the English, eh?
_________________
The resident pantomime villain.
'Socialists cry "Power to the people", and raise the clenched fist as they say it. We all know what they really mean—power over people, power to the State.'

Holebender · Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 1:47 pm Post subject:

You have to look at them in context, not judge them by the standards of our peaceful home lives.

Was Wallace any different from a French Resistance fighter in 1943? Do we think badly of the French Resistance or do we believe they fought against an occupying army with whatever means available?
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso

RFM · Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 3:51 pm Post subject:

Not really Adventinian, killing in the 14th century was not a crime. In fact the term "murder" comes from the Old English "murdrum" which meant to kill a Frenchman. If you look at the Assize of Clarendon 1166, presentment of Englishry was abolished, which essentially meant that a killing was presumed to be the killing of an Norman and the hundred was required to pay a fine. If he was proven to be an Englishman, no fine. In fact right down to the 19th century, a member of the nobility could not be tried for killing in the King's Courts. He had to be tried by the House of Lords, and unless the matter concerned treason or an offense against the realm, he was not likely to be condemned by his peers.

In Scotland, I am told, that the criminal court, the High Court of Justiciary, was formed in 1632, some time after the formation of the Court of Sessions in the reign of James V (1546?). Which seems to suggest two things: first there was no statute book defining what was crime and what was not, second that killing someone was regarded as a civil loss to the family and not to the community, payable by a fine according to status of the deceased. So in the time of William Wallace, taking a sword to somebody was probably regarded as an acceptable form of dispute resolution.

But your larger point remains. William Wallace was a guardian of the realm of Scotland and a high government official, not some bar room brawler and goon which unfortunately modern historical protrayals make him out to be (See the William Wallace website for an example). It is indeed sad that the obvious contributions as statesman, contender for the throne of Scotland, high government official are all overlooked and emphasis is placed on his fighting ability instead.

Holebender · Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 4:06 pm Post subject:

Never let your ignorance get in the way of opening your mouth and letting your belly rumble, eh RFM?

I'll leave someone else to deal with your silliness about killing not being a crime.

I'll just correct a couple of points about Wallace. Wallace only became Guardian after the Battle of Stirling Bridge, so how would his acts before then have been judged?

Wallace never ever contended for the throne of Scotland. He always, to his dying day, fought in the name of King John; it is one of the things which make him truly a hero, that he never fought for personal gain but for a higher cause. He fought for his country and (as he saw it) her lawful leader.
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso

RFM · Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 6:49 pm Post subject:

Speak of ignorance and look who appears.

You have some authority as to what crimes were and how they were defined in 14th century Scotland Mr. Holebender? Of course not! Snide and snarky commentary is the best you are able to do.

Wallace was a Guardian of Scotland, not the only one by the way at the time, and your point is what exactly? That Guardians were chosen for their fighting ability? Please, enough stupidity!

King John, you may or may not know (most likely the latter) was resident in England enjoying the hospitality of Good King Edward. One of the reasons Scotland had Guardians for the throne.

One of the most likely reasons the Scottish nobility arrested Wallace and delivered him to Good King Edward was Wallace's popularity and his proven ability as a general, or if you prefer military leader. That was deemed a desirable quality in Kings at that time. Wallace was supposed to have been descended from Welsh nobility, but he was a knight, a landlowner and is supposed to have signed at least one Treaty in behalf of Scotland. Seems to me he would have been an excellent candidate for the throne. The "bar room" history of Scotland contends that he had no such aspirations, that he risked life limb and property for his King and not for any personal benefit. Nice story but very difficult for anybody with a little brains to believe. That would apparently include you.

Holebender · Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 9:26 pm Post subject:

OK, RFM, find me one reputable historical reference to Wallace ever having any ambition for the Throne of Scotland. He could have taken it with ease at any time from 1297.

Of course John was a prisoner in England, otherwise there'd be no need for Guardians. Did I say otherwise? I said Wallace fought and acted in the name of King John, not that he fought under his direct command or orders.

As for the rest of your post, you didn't address anything I said so I'll ignore it.
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso

RFM · Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 12:08 am Post subject:

Yes, yes, I see that reading the English language is not one of your strong points either.

If you go read my posting you will notice the personal pronoun is conspicuously absent. What that means to you Sir, is the sentence can not be read to say that he contended for anything, rather that he would have been an obvious choice for a possible candidate. Why do you think the Scottish nobility delivered him to Edward? Because they thought he was doing too good a job at liberating Scotland?

It was not very long before the reign of King John that Scotland elected their Kings according to the Scandinavian custom. It was King David who brought the Norman custom of hereditary right to Scotland. Given a choice between characters like John Comyn who defected to the English after the Battle of Sterling or Robert DeBrus, who couldn't make up his mind whether he was on Edward's side or not, depending on which day of the week it was, Wallace would have been an outstanding choice. But that would result in a really free and independent Scotland and people like DeBrus did not want to see that happen under the leadership of someone like Wallace.