Lord Of The Rings -a brief commentary on the Lord of the Fantasies

‘Three rings for the elven kings

Under the sky,

Seven for the dwarf lords

In their halls of stone,

Nine for mortal men

doomed to die,

One for the dark Lord

On his throne.’

These few immortal lines only lay down the plot of the novel ‘The Lord of the Rings’.

Perhaps the greatest fantasy story ever written, The lord of the Rings,  published in parts in 1954 and 1955 , is a tale of all times, all ages. Being an epic, it has affected all the fantasy stories written since then in some way or other. Hence every fantasy novel owes something to ‘’The Lord of Fantasies’’. Pitting the stout but brave hearted hobbits against the Sauron, The Lord of terror; the story is a modern version of David and Goliath. Frodo, the main protagonist and three friends of his are assigned a task that not even the bravest would dare to achieve: to enter the land of Mordor, the kingdom of Sauron, to destroy a ring … The ring which Sauron is frantically searching for in the whole of middle earth. Along with the hobbits join a bizarre group of protagonists; two men, a wizard, an elf and a dwarf. En route they meet a host of creatures ( good and evil), fight some spectacular battles, run into some horrific Orcs and a mysterious Gollum. J.R.R Tolkien, the author of these books, broadens the dimensions and culture of the Middle-earth he had created in the prequel, ‘The Hobbit.’ He has achieved what very few authors can; he created a whole fantasy land full of elves and dwarves and men and hobbits and demons and what not!

From the breathtaking battles to the melodramatic climax to an unexpected surprise at the very end, The Lord of The Rings is the unchallenged archetype for an epic fantasy and a perennial delight for generations of readers. 

[ This brief review of the book LOTR is of Siddharth Maitra,on invitation. Siddharth is a teenage  boy  who has become a lifelong fanatic fan of LOTR, has read the novel a few times including The Hobbit, and has seen the 3-part movie at home and in the Theater not less than thirty times. He sleeps while  on a virtual chat with Frodo and Sams and wake up on a call from Gandalf, get amused with the dual conflicts of Gholam (Gholam's Sketch drawn by Siddharth - here is the link http://siddharth-dreamspace.blogspot.com/2011/03/sketch-of-ghollum-character-of-lord-of.html)  and get threatened with the voice of Shaurun and Nozguls. Location marking in the map above is his own. 

J.R.Tolkein drew his fantasy classics with some real life events like the World Wars, drew inspiration from Finish fables and rest are created within the minuscule brain factory of this Timeless Wizard of Fantasy.Our revered tribute to the Guru.]

Freedom Struggle Heroes - Series II: American Hero, Francis Marion - The Swamp Fox

Intro
 It is a kinda picking up  pearls of a life scattered across the blogosphere and present it to my family and friends for reading and wonder in awe, bowing head to one and only the Swamp Fox   who fought  the British colonial oppression in the 18th century AD and inspired generations of Americans through his contribution to the independence movement. The movie Patriot is a tribute to him and other American revolutionaries of South Carolina province who fought a real dirty war in 1780-82 . Here is his life sketch.

Army Officer Francis Marion

"The Swamp Fox"

A:Facts from History

 1.In Brief

Marion, Francis (1732?–1795), an American Revolutionary War army officer. Marion was called “the Swamp Fox” because of his skillful hit-and-run raids as a partisan (guerrilla) leader in the swamps of South Carolina during 1780–82. By capturing several British army posts and harassing the enemy's lines of communication, he did much to drive the British from the state. His exploits were romanticized by Parson Weems, the biographer of George Washington who invented the cherry-tree tale. Towns and counties throughout the United States are named for Marion.

Marion's birthplace was probably in Berkeley County, South Carolina. He inherited a small plantation and served in campaigns against the Cherokees in 1759 and 1761. In 1775, at the opening of the Revolution, he was elected to the South Carolina legislature and was made a captain of state troops. In 1779 he commanded a regiment during an unsuccessful attack on Savannah.

In August, 1780, Marion became a brigadier general of state militia. The invasion of the state by British troops drove him into the lowland swamps and forests. At times Marion had as few as 20 men. The Battle of Eutaw Springs (1781), in which he took part, ended formal warfare in South Carolina, but Marion disarmed at least 500 remaining Loyalists. He disbanded his men in December, 1782.

Due to his irregular methods of warfare, he is considered one of the fathers of modern guerrilla warfare, and is credited in the lineage of the United States Army Rangers. He is known as the Swamp Fox.


2.Early Life

His grandparents were Benjamin and Judith Baluet Marion of French Huguenot origin, and Anthony and Esther Baluet Cordes. His parents Gabriel and Esther had six children: Esther, Isaac, Gabriel, Benjamin, Job and Francis.

The family settled at Winyah, near Georgetown, South Carolina. Probably in 1732, Francis Marion was born on their plantation in Berkeley County, South Carolina. When he was aged five or six, his family moved to a plantation in St. George, a parish on Winyah Bay.Apparently, they wanted to be near the English school in Georgetown. In 1759 he moved to Pond Bluff plantation near Eutaw Springs, in St. John's Parish, Berkeley County, South Carolina

3.Shipwreck Crew 

Marion at age 15 went as the sixth crew member of a ship. That ship sank. Two of the crews died on sea due to absence of any food or drinking water. After the shipwreck, Marion decided to stick to land, managing his family's plantation until he joined the South Carolina militia at 25 to fight in the French and Indian War.

4.French and Indian War

Marion began his military career shortly before his 25th birthday. On January 1, 1757, Francis and his brother Job were recruited by Captain John Postell to serve in the French and Indian War and to drive the Cherokee Indians away from the border. In 1761 Marion served as a lieutenant under Captain William Moultrie in acampaign against the Cherokee.

In 1761, after his militia had defeated the area Cherokees, Marion returned to farming. He was successful enough to purchase his own plantation, Pond Bluff, in 1773.


5.American Revolutionary War - Early Service

Turning from military to domestic matters, Marion became a successful planter in St. John’s Parish. He later received a small inheritance and purchased a larger plantation on the Santee River. Increasing prosperity brought him into active participation in public affairs, where he emerged as an advocate for the rights of American colonists in the face of oppressive British policies.

With the outbreak of war in 1775, Francis Marion became increasingly prominent in the Patriot cause.In 1775, Marion was elected to the first South Carolina Provincial Congress, an organization in support of colonial self-determination It is the governing body of the colony following the collapse of royal authority. On June 21, 1775, Marion was commissioned Captain in the 2nd South Carolina Regiment under William Moultrie, with whom he served in June 1776 in the defense of Fort Sullivan (today known as Fort Moultrie), in Charleston harbor He also fought in a number of the early battles in the South, again under Moultrie, in February 1776.

In September 1776 the Continental Congress commissioned Marion as a Lieutenant Colonel.
The Provincial Congress voted to raise three regiments, commissioning Marion a captain in the second. His first assignments involved guarding artillery and building Fort Sullivan, in the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina. When he saw combat during the Battle of Fort Sullivan in June 1776, Marion acted valiantly. But for much of the next three years, he remained at the fort, occupying the time by trying to discipline his troops, whom he found to be a disorderly, drunken bunch insistent on showing up to roll call barefoot.
In the autumn of 1779 he took part in the siege of Savannah, a failed Franco-American attempt to capture the Georgia city.

In September 1778, Marion was commissioned as the commander of the South Carolina Second State Regiment and in the following year, he fought under Benjamin Lincoln at the second Battle of Savannah.
In early 1780 Greene was placed under Benjamin Lincoln and engaged in drilling militia.

Marion's role in the war changed course after an odd accident in March of 1780. Attending a dinner party at the Charleston home of a fellow officer, Marion found that the host, in accordance with 18th-century custom, had locked all the doors while he toasted the American cause. The toasts went on and on, and Marion, who was not a drinking man, felt trapped. He escaped by jumping out a second story window, but broke his ankle in the fall. Marion left town to recuperate in the country, with the fortunate result that he was not captured when the British took Charleston that May.

6.Fall of Charleston

A British expedition under Henry Clinton moved into South Carolina in the early Spring of 1780 and laid siege to Charleston. Marion was not captured with the rest of the garrison when Charleston fell on May 12, 1780, because he had broken an ankle in an accident and had left the city to recuperate. Clinton took part of the British army that had captured Charleston back to New York but a significant number stayed for operations under Lord Cornwallis in the Carolinas.

7.Guerrilla war - the Swamp Fox 

Elusive and crafty, Francis Marion outwitted British troops many times.Marion and his irregulars often defeated larger bodies of British troops by the surprise and rapidity of their movement over swampy terrain. For a daring rescue of Americans surrounded by the British at Parkers Ferry, South Carolina (August 1781), Marion received the thanks of Congress.

Francis Marion responded to the British victory at Camden in August 1780 by leading a series of successful nighttime guerilla-style raids against the British supply and communication lines, and against small concentrations of British or Loyalist soldiers. Frustrated opponents, including Benastre Tarleton, failed to track down the elusive “Swamp Fox” as Marion had become known. In December 1780, he was promoted to brigadier general under Nathanael Greene.

In 1781, Marion participated in the protracted fighting in the Carolinas that culminated at Eutaw Springs in September. The Americans were forced from the field, but British losses compelled them to pull back to Charleston and their war plan deteriorated rapidly in the following weeks.


8.Post War Activities

After the war, Francis Marion served in the South Carolina Senate( 1782-90) and sponsored legislative measures designed to provide fair treatment for the remaining Loyalists. In 1790, he was a delegate to the state constitutional convention and was a supporter of the new federal governing document.
.
Most heroes of the Revolution were not the saints that biographers like Parson Weems would have them be, and Francis Marion was a man of his times: he owned slaves, and he fought in a brutal campaign against the Cherokee Indians. While not noble by today's standards, Marion's experience in the French and Indian War prepared him for more admirable service. The Cherokee used the landscape to their advantage, Marion found; they concealed themselves in the Carolina backwoods and mounted devastating ambushes.  Marion applied these tactics against the British.

He died on his estate on February 27, 1795 while drawing state pension of five hundred US dollar annually.


B: Portrayal in International Mel Gibson acted and directed movie  "The Patriot" 

"Benjamin Martin is a composite character made up of Thomas Sumter, Daniel Morgan, Andrew Pickens, and Francis Marion, and a few bits and pieces from a number of other characters". The film was harshly criticized in the British press in part because of its connection to Francis Marion, a militia leader in South Carolina known as the "Swamp Fox." After the release of The Patriot, the British newspaper The Guardian denounced Francis Marion as "a serial rapist who hunted Red Indians for fun

The 2000 movie The Patriot exaggerated the Swamp Fox legend for a whole new generation. "One of the silliest things the movie did," says Sean Busick, a professor of American history at Athens State University in Alabama, "was to make Marion into an 18th century Rambo."

C: The British Media and Critic Vs US Historians 

1. The British Media and Critic Opine

Historian Christopher Hibbert said of Marion,
"The truth is that people like Marion committed atrocities as bad, if not worse, than those perpetrated by the British.

The Patriot does not depict the American character Benjamin Martin as innocent of atrocities; in fact, Martin describes slowly mutilating and killing prisoners during the French and Indian War. In Hibbert's book Redcoats and Rebels: The American Revolution Through British Eyes, written before "The Patriot" was released, Hibbert included no criticism of Marion. Conservative radio host Michael Graham rejected Hibbert's criticism of Marion in a commentary published inNational Review:
The antagonist, the fictional Colonel William Tavington, is "loosely based on Colonel Banastre Tarleton, who was particularly known for his brutal acts", said the film's screenwriter Robert Rodat.

After the release of The Patriot, several British voices criticized the movie for its depiction of the fictional villain Tavington and defended the historical character of Banastre Tarleton. Ben Fenton, commenting in the British Daily Telegraph, wrote:
"there is no evidence that Tarleton, called 'Bloody Ban' or 'The Butcher' in rebel pamphlets, ever broke the rules of war and certainly not that he ever shot a child in cold blood

Although Tarleton gained the reputation among Americans as a butcher for his involvement in the Waxhaw massacre in South Carolina, he was a hero in Liverpool.Liverpool City Council, led by Mayor Edwin Clein, called for a public apology for what they viewed as the film’s "character assassination" of Tarleton. What happened during the Battle of The Waxhaws, known to the Americans as the Buford Massacre or as the Waxhaw massacre, is the subject of debate. According to American field surgeon named Robert Brownfield who witnessed the events, the Continental Army Col. Buford raised a white flag of surrender, "expecting the usual treatment sanctioned by civilized warfare". While Buford was calling for quarter, Tarleton's horse was struck by a musket ball and fell. This gave the Loyalist cavalrymen the impression that the Continentals had shot at their commander while asking for mercy. Enraged, the Loyalist troops charged at the Virginians. According to Brownfield, the Loyalists attacked, carrying out "indiscriminate carnage never surpassed by the most ruthless atrocities of the most barbarous savages".

Whereas Tavington is depicted as aristocratic but penniless, Tarleton came from a wealthy Liverpool merchant family. Tarleton did not die in battle or from impalement, as Tavington did in the film. Tarleton died on January 16, 1833 in Leintwardine, Shropshire, England, at the age of 78, nearly 50 years after the war ended. He outlived Col. Francis Marion who died in 1795, by 38 years. Before his death, Tarleton had achieved the military rank of General, equal to that held by the overall British Commanders during the American Revolution, and became a baronet and a member of the British Parliament. There he was, unfortunately for his legacy, a fierce defender of the African slave trade upon which his family fortune was based.

2. US Historians Views

Fortunately, the real Francis Marion has not been entirely obscured by his legend—historians including William Gilmore Simms and Hugh Rankin have written accurate biographies. Based on the facts alone, "Marion deserves to be remembered as one of the heroes of the War for Independence," says Busick, who has written the introduction to a new edition of Simms' The Life of Francis Marion, out in June 2007.

"Was Francis Marion a slave owner? Was he a determined and dangerous warrior? Did he commit acts in an 18th century war that we would consider atrocious in the current world of peace and political correctness? As another great American film hero might say: 'You're damn right.' "That's what made him a hero, 200 years ago and today

Graham also refers to what he describes as "the unchallenged work of South Carolina's premier historian Dr. Walter Edgar, who pointed out in his 1998 South Carolina: A History that Marion's partisans were "a ragged band of both black and white volunteers"

Amy Crawford, in Smithsonian Magazine, stated that modern historians such as William Gilmore Simms and Hugh Rankin have written accurate biographies of Marion, including Simms’ “The Life of Francis Marion.” The introduction to the 2007 edition of Simms' book was written by Sean Busick, a professor of American history at Athens State University in Alabama, who wrote,
"Marion deserves to be remembered as one of the heroes of the War for Independence." “Francis Marion was a man of his times: he owned slaves, and he fought in a brutal campaign against the Cherokee Indians...Marion's experience in the French and Indian War prepared him for more admirable service."

Some reviewers claimed the film to be generally accurate in its depiction of the war in the Carolinas as exceptionally brutal. For example, Kirkus Reviews quoted South Carolina historian Dr. Walter Edgar on the subject:

Though critics faulted The Patriot for attributing actions to the hated British Legion that were in fact those of the SS in WWII, Edgar (History/Univ. of South Carolina) writes that atrocities were many in the South Carolina backcountry: women and children slaughtered, prisoners executed without trial, whole towns put to the torch... "in the 1990s instead of the 1780s, [officers] such as Banastre Tarleton and James Wemyss would have been indicted by the International Tribunal at the Hague as war criminals."

Many of the legends that surround the life and exploits of Brigadier General Francis Marion were introduced by M. L. "Parson" Weems, coauthor of the first Marion biography, The Life of General Francis Marion. "I have endeavored to throw some ideas and facts about Genl. Marion into the garb and dress of a military romance," Weems wrote in 1807 to Peter Horry, the South Carolina officer on whose memoir the book was based. Weems had also authored an extremely popular biography of George Washington in 1800,

The Oil Painting at U.S. Senate

Francis Marion's Oil Painting at U.S.Senate
[ John Blake White's oil-on-canvas, "General Marion Inviting a British Officer to Share His Meal," hangs in a third floor hallway on the Senate side of the U.S. Capitol. White painted the Revolutionary War hero (in hat and blue jacket) from memory—the artist's boyhood home was next door to Marion's South Carolina plantation, Pond Bluff.]

The oil painting describes a special event : In early 1781, Revolutionary War militia leader Francis Marion and his men were camping on Snow's Island, South Carolina, when a British officer arrived to discuss a prisoner exchange. As one militiaman recalled years later, a breakfast of sweet potatoes was roasting in the fire, and after the negotiations Marion, known as the "Swamp Fox," invited the British soldier to share breakfast. According to a legend that grew out of the much-repeated anecdote, the British officer was so inspired by the Americans' resourcefulness and dedication to the cause—despite their lack of adequate provisions, supplies or proper uniforms—that he promptly switched sides and supported American independence. Around 1820, John Blake White depicted the scene in an oil painting that now hangs in the United States Capitol. In his version, the primly attired Redcoat seems uncomfortable with Marion's ragtag band, who glare at him suspiciously from the shadows of a South Carolina swamp.

Bill passed in both Houses in  2007 and 2008 for erecting a special statue of Francis Marion at Washinton D.C.

Here is a  the Swamp Fox Murals Trail on Historic 301: Summerton, Manning, Paxville, Turbeville, SC - for interested visitors.

D: Reference and Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Patriot_(2000_film)

http://history.howstuffworks.com/revolutionary-war/francis-marion.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Marion

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1289.html

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/biography/fox.html

http://www.francismariontrail.com/

http://www.history.com/topics/francis-marion

Freedom Struggle Heroes - Series I:Scottish Hero, William Wallace - The Brave Heart

  It is a kinda picking up  pearls of a life scattered across the blogosphere
and present it to my family and friends for reading and uttering those
exclamation and awes, bowing head to one of its Brave Heart  that 
came fighting the British colonial oppression in the 13th century AD 
and became a martyr, inspiring generations across the globe. 

Sir William Wallace William Wallace Monument                                             "I have been given nothing. The Lord makes men what they are!"                       -Sir William Wallace William Wallace is a hero to the Scots, to be sure, but much of him seems to be borne in legends, now. There is not a great deal to be known about him. He was born at Elderslie, in Paisley Parish. His father was a vassal of the High Steward of Scotland, James Stewart. It is possible that Wallace received some education at Paisley Abbey, for it does appear that he knew Latin and French. He had uncles who were priests, and it is likely that they taught him. He married Marian Braidfoot around 1297 in the church of St. Kentigern in Lanark. As portrayed in the filmBraveheart, Marian (or Murron) was indeed murdered under the direction of the English sheriff of Lanark, William de Hazelrig, in May of 1297. However, it appears that, in reality, she was killed because Wallace had done more than protect her from a previous assault by English soldiers, as depicted in the film. It seems that he had already risen against the English when they killed Marian in reprisal. Interestingly, at the same time that Wallace was attacking Hazelrig, Andrew Murray was leading an attack against the English in the Highlands. There were other rebellions across the country at that time, as well. The unrest was due to the imposition of strict rule on the Scots after John Balliol, who had held the throne of Scotland for a brief time, gave up his kingship. Edward I had control of Scotland, as she had no king, and he wanted to make certain that the Scots did not break free from beneath his hand. Under such oppression it was not surprising that the Scots did react, many of them, being poor, forming weapons from farm implements. Wallace's huge act of rebellion attracted the attention of common folk and Scots nobles alike, all of whom were unwilling to bear Edward I's bonds. These, including James Stewart, to whom William Wallace's father had been a vassal, Sir James Douglas, and Robert the Bruce allied with Wallace and, under the tutelage of the Bishop of Glasgow, Robert Wishart, they prepared to throw off the shackles of the English. Wallace and Murray were aghast when the nobles who had allied with them surrendered to the English on July 9, 1297 at Irvine. In response, the two men began to take control of the rebel forces which had become scattered about the country. By August they had consolidated the rebels into one army at Stirling. The Battle of Stirling happened a little differently than portrayed in the film. On September 11, 1297, the English forces were arrayed around Stirling Castle, while the Scots were opposite them across the Forth, which wound through a valley there. All that separated them was a bridge across the Forth. Because of poor commanding by the English leaders, the English were trapped as they crossed the bridge and were slaughtered by the Scots. It was an incredible victory for Wallace and Murray. Unfortunately, Murray was mortally wounded during the battle and died shortly thereafter. Wallace assumed control of the rebels himself, then, but it is acknowledged that he had lost an irreplaceable partner in Murray. Still, Wallace lead his men on a deadly raid all the way to County Durham, England, in October. In November he and his men returned to Scotland to wait out the bitter winter. During that time he reconsolidated his forces. In March of 1298 Wallace was knighted, possibly by Robert the Bruce himself, in Tor Wood, and he was appointed Guardian of Scotland. The fact that a man of his means was appointed to such a potentially powerful position indicates how revered he was by the nobles for his role in trying to free Scotland, and how dear to the Scots nobles freedom was. There is no evidence that Wallace ever misused the power that was given him by the nobles. Instead he used it to the best of his ability to rally the commoners and the nobles around him to fight the English. This is to his credit, for many of the nobles might not have been quite so honorable in the same position. Wallace remained steadfast and did not waiver from his goal of freedom for Scotland. Edward I and his men finally headed for Scotland in July of 1298. One of Wallace's tactics was to move all livestock and people from the path that the English would take through Scotland on their way to meet him. This would guarantee that the English would not find ready provisions or information as they traveled north. Another of Wallace's tactics was to train his men to use shiltrons -- groups of men holding spears out in all directions, forming a defense much like that of a porcupine or hedgehog. In Braveheart, true shiltrons were not used but were replaced by long spears used to defend against the English heavy horse. However, shiltrons had proved very successful in past battles. And so Wallace and his men awaited the English. Sadly, the English army was much larger than that of the Scots, and despite Wallace's best efforts, the English decimated the Scots at Falkirk. Wallace himself barely escaped the field with his life. Some historians do believe that Robert the Bruce was involved in rescuing Wallace from the battlefield, as shown in the film, but others place the Bruce in Ayrshire, where he attacked Ayr Castle, which was under English occupation. I personally believe that Bruce very well could have been at Falkirk, for he did not attack and burn Ayr Castle until August of 1298. After the Scots' horrendous loss at Falkirk, Wallace resigned as Guardian, though it is not known if he did so willingly or not. Robert the Bruce and his cousin, John Comyn, the Red, were appointed to replace him in that position. Very little is known of Wallace's activities from the time of his resignation until his capture and eventual execution in 1304. As depicted in Braveheart, Wallace probably did lead several raids into northern England. However, what was not included in the film was the possibility that Wallace went to the Continent to seek help from the Norse, French, and even the Pope. A letter from Philip IV was sent to Rome asking that Wallace be given the help that could be managed. Based upon the letter's date, Wallace was probably in Rome around 1300. Raids into England continued into 1303, most of them performed in Wallace's style, though we do not know if he was actually a member of these raiding parties. However, these additional forays into England served only to anger Edward I further, so that he concentrated his efforts to find Wallace. Wallace managed, with the help of the many Scots who believed him to be a hero, to elude Edward, at least for a time. But Edward so strongly beat the Scots nobles into submission that Wallace's days were surely numbered. Though we know nothing of the actual capture of Wallace near Glasgow aside from the fact that it was accomplished by Scotsman John Mentieth (or, as some sources say, by Mentieth's servant), we do know that Wallace was immediately taken to London, as shown in the film, and he arrived there on August 22. He was lead through the streets of Fenchurch the next morning, where the crowds, much as they did in the film, jeered him and pelted him with rotten food and bread. The English had been lead to believe that Wallace was a merciless outlaw who had killed innocent Englishmen and who should be punished. At Westminster Hall Wallace was forced to stand on a platform and wear what some believe was a crown of thorns. He went before a magisterial panel appointed by Edward. Interestingly, one of the main charges brought against him was the murder of the Sheriff of Lanark, Hazelrig, some eight years before. Another charge was, of course, treason. The charges were read and the sentence pronounced, as was the custom of the day, for outlaws, being outside the law, had no rights; Wallace was not given any opportunity to speak in his own defense. The sentence was immediately carried out: Wallace was wrapped in oxhide and dragged several miles to Smithfield. Then, as shown in the film, he was hanged until almost unconscious, then he was taken down, tied to a table, disemboweled, and his entrails were set afire while still attached to him. He was possibly castrated, as well. He was finally put out of his unimaginable misery by being beheaded. His body was quartered, the pieces being sent to Newcastle-upon-Tyne in England, and Berwick, Perth, and Stirling in Scotland, and his head was placed on a pike on London Bridge for all to see, all as a warning to other would-be traitors. William Wallace's beliefs are clear in what some have said was his favorite bit of verse, originally in Latin: Freedom is best, I tell thee true, of all things to be won. Then never live within the bond of slavery, my son. And so it was on the 3rd of August of 1304 that Sir John Mentieth captured William Wallace somewhere near Glasgow. Sadly, Mentieth had been on the side of Scots freedom some time before, but he had grown greedy and had succumbed to Edward I. In reward he was made sheriff of Dumbarton. Though there is no indication that Wallace was on his way to meet The Bruce when he was betrayed, the film was, sadly, accurate in its depiction of his betrayal by one of his own countrymen. Today one can see several Scots' monuments to their hero: one at Edinburgh Castle, on one side of the entrance (The Bruce occupies the other side); one in Lanark, in a niche above the door of the current parish church facing High Street; and the most famous, in Stirling, at the National Wallace Monument. Wallace lives on in the imagination of Scotland. Information on the National Wallace Monument, Stirling, Scotland Open: February and November, 10am - 4pm, weekends only March - May & October, 10am - 5pm daily June & September, 10am - 6pm daily July & August, 9:30am - 6:30pm daily January & December, closed. Enquiries, phone (01786) 472140 (in Scotland). William Wallace Plaque William Wallace Statue Additional Research paper on Sir William Wallace, that I find worth referring to readers ( for  non-commercial use), below, as  true fact finding analysis by a non-British. Read this and compare with Indian Independence against the British six hundred years later. Situation different.  Characters different. But there are some commonality of betrayal and conspiracy from within the country and there are fire brand heroes of our soil who were put on the gallows by Britishers as Terrorist and Law Breakers. This research and retelling was written by Highlander Web Magazine . Please visit their site for even more information about events pertaining to Wallace and other greats of Scottish history. Sir William Wallace Early death and internal disputes in those days were common place. Alexander III (1249-1286) was at logger-heads with Edward the Longshanks, and was forging a relationship with the King of Norway Erik II in order to keep the peace. Alexander's wife Margaret had three children, so it seemd the heir to his throne would be his eldest son also named Alexander. Unfortunately for this royal family lady luck had finally turned her head. Margaret died in 1275 at the age of 35, her eldest son Alexander (the heir) died in 1284. His brother David had passed away three years earlier and only two years after the death of young Alexander he was swiftly followed by Alexander III's daughter who had been married to Eric II King of Norway in 1281, obviously in an attempt to create a bond and subsequently peace. When Alexander heard of his daughter's death in Norway, he realised that he had no heir and announced that he had to get married - and quickly. He married Yolande, daughter of the Count of Dreux in 1284. However in 1286 after a rather routine council meeting in Edinburgh Castle, and probably fired up with a few goblets of French wine, he decided to go and pay his young wife a visit. On his way there he was blown off his horse by a stormy wind and fell down a cliff to his death. The long and successful reign of Alexander III was over. Immediately his death was announced, Yolande, his second wife followed with an announcement of her own saying that she was pregnant. After a few months patiently waiting to see if she was telling the truth, it became clear that she wasn't pregnant and therefore would never produce an heir to Alexander III. Alexander's daughter, Margaret, who had been married to the King of Norway had a daughter, surprisingly enough her name was also Margaret. Known as 'The Maid of Norway' Alexander's only surviving blood relative was this small child. She was 3 years old when the crown of Scotland fell on her head. The situation in Scotland was desperate to say the least. Their queen was a three year old girl called Margaret, and she was hundreds of miles away in Norway residing with her father the King of Norway who was only 16 years old himself. This is the time in Scotland's history when the Guardians of Scotland took control. Both the family of Bruce and the Balliol's claimed their right to the throne, saying that they were descended from the line of David I (1124 - 1153, son of Alexander I). Civil war in Scotland was just around the corner, and the two most powerful families, namely Bruce and Balliol began to seize castles and territory of strategic value. And this is where Longshanks comes in to play stronger than ever before. It was clear that only one man had the authority and power to restore the Scottish throne. If either the Bruce's or the Balliol's could gain the support of Longshanks then the other would have to bow down and accept the ruling. The only questions were, what would be Longshank's price? and what would his decision be? With Longshank's usual cunning and educated ways he set about putting in place England's terms, Margaret 'The Maid of Norway' and the ' Damsel of Scotland' was to succeed the throne as was her birth right. However she was to marry Longshanks' son, Edward. Scotland would remain independent and completely separate from England according to its rightful boundaries, free and without subjection. This was all very well, but Longshanks' Clerks inserted into the agreement reservations which undermined Scottish Independence. Longshanks prepared his ships and sent them on their way to collect the 3 year old Queen of Scotland from Norway. He prepared his son Edward, who was only 6 years old himself, for marriage. The ships laden with sweetmeats, rich fruits and 28 pounds of gingerbread designed to keep the young infant happy on her long voyage to England. One month later the ships returned and had failed in their task to bring the young girl across the sea. Erik II King of Norway had decided it best to actually send his daughter to Scotland via the Islands of Orkney and Shetland (which he still ruled at that time), but during the long voyage her frail and delicate constitution couldn't withstand the stormy seas and she died before upon reaching Orkney - never having even set foot on Scottish soil. The long and successful house of Dunkeld, the ancient Scottish dynasty which had reigned since Duncan I in 1043 after the line had been passed to him form the first house of Scotland, the house of Alpin, was now over. With the death of Margaret 'Damsel of Scotland' on 26th September 1290, the ideas and principals which Longshanks had just laid out came to an end - a new King for Scotland had to be found. A letter was written by Bishop Fraser to Longshanks informing him of the young Queens death, and requesting that he come to Scotland and put in place one of the rival houses - either Bruce or Balliol. The letter informed him that John Balliol wanted to meet, and if chosen would follow Longshanks' council and pay him homage: meaning that he would rule Scotland under English superiority. But the letter also hinted to Longshanks to handle John Balliol with great care and if he did place John Balliol on the throne of Scotland and support his claim he would have to deal firmly not only with him but also with the disgruntled Bruce's, who might see fit as to wage war. It was a difficult time and Longshanks had to make sure that his new plans would still give him the opportunity to unite Scotland and England and make England the ruling home. Between 1290 and 1292 Longshanks played a long and careful hand. This two year period of Interregnum was great credit to the now passed 'House of Dunkeld' since neither family were prepared to take to the sword and agreed that the matter could be handled within legal proceedings at court. Both families, Bruce and Balliol, claimed there decent from the line of David I's daughters. The Balliol claim was from David's eldest daughter, also called Margaret - and the Bruce claim was from the second daughter of David I, Isabel. However, as price of mediation between these two houses, Longshanks placed himself in the position as 'Overlord of the land of Scotland' according to the highest legal principles. Longshanks, the future 'Hammer of the Scots' insisted that all those who claimed the right to the throne would adhere to certain rules. They must accept the judgment of the court and they must accept him as their feudal superior. This would give Longshanks the superiority that he thought he always deserved, and lay the foundations for 'his' United Kingdom! During this time of organization and dispute Longshanks put in place English constables in Key Scottish royal castles in case there was any trouble from either family. The occupation of Scotland by Longshanks was well under way, and while the houses continued their meetings and arguments over who would be King of Scotland, Longshanks had gained a secure foothold on Scottish lands - or had he? Of course the two names of Balliol and Bruce were at the forefront of the courts hearing, but what is commonly disregarded is the fact that the total amount of claims to the throne numbered 15. For example the Hastings family, descended from David I's third daughter, Ada, believed that the kingdom should be divided into three. Others based their claims on the throne from the descent of David I's sister, King Donald Ban, or other variations of the royal family's bastard offspring: one each from Alexander II and henry of Huntingdon, five from the libidinous William the Lion and even the 'Maid of Norway's' father, Erik II, threw his hat into the ring in a bizarre gesture of reverse inheritance. The more complicated the story the better it was for Longshanks, he now had 15 potential Kings to choose from, and a lot of time to let his courts make the decision. After a great show of learning, which involved council with major continental universities, the court made up its mind on 6th November 1292. Just to gain that little extra piece of superiority Longshanks waited for 11 days before allowing the decision to be announced. In the Great Hall of Berwick Castle: his liege man, the 43 year old John Balliol was to be the new monarch of Scotland. Hardly surprising since two years before he had received the letter from the Bishop Fraser recommending exactly that decision. On St. Andrew's Day 1292, King John was enthroned on the Stone of Scone (The Stone of Destiny), the last monarch to receive this privilege in his native land. The following month he did homage to Edward I the Longshanks at Newcastle as part of the English court's Christmas festivities. It is now that the game begins. King John Balliol of Scotland did not reign in the great peace that he thought was his. What with the ambitions of Longshanks, backed by the disloyalty of the thwarted Competitors, King John never had the peace in which to establish himself. Longshanks exploited the troubled situation to its fullest, he demanded that the complaints of his Scottish subjects be heard in English courts. When John understandably objected he was threatened, by his 'Overlord' Longshanks with whom he had previously paid homage, with contempt of court and the loss of three of his major castles and towns. Longshanks also stirred Erik II to reclaim the Western Isles as the Scots had not kept up the payment of 100 merks due to the Norwegian king as was agreed in the treaties which Longshanks had forced the Scots to agree on if they wanted him to mediate the decision of their new king. Add to that the less than patriotic behaviour of the other thwarted families, King John was caught in a place which he didn't want - he ruled a country which didn't want him, and he was not supported by Longshanks the way which he thought he would have been by paying him homage. Longshanks had exactly what he wanted: A divided Scotland in which both sides wanted his help. He was indeed 'Overlord of the land of Scotland' and he didn't have to pick up a sword. The final straw came when Longshanks insisted that John help him with military service against the French King Philip IV, Balliol had had enough. He did the opposite and forged a treaty with King Philip IV in October 1295 and assembled his host near Selkirk the following March. If Longshanks wanted any more from King John, then he was going to have to fight for it. This, of course, was just what Longshanks had been waiting for and wanted. He had imposed his judgment and superior position on Scotland's king, and then bullied him into a corner which Longshanks new he would eventually strike back from: he had been picking a fight with Scotland for years, and now he was going to get it. But as always the cards were stacked in Longshanks' favour. Whilst bullying Balliol, he had been gaining favour with the other families by allowing them to speak out. The ill-armed and ill-supported army of King John Balliol was no match for Longshanks' battle-hardened professional soldiers. At the end of March Longshanks had sacked Berwick and massacred its inhabitants. Many of the great castles surrendered to his call and with one month, on 27th April the Earl of Surrey and his Scottish allies routed King John's forces at the battle of Dunbar. Edinburgh Castle fell, and John surrendered on July 11th. At a humiliating ceremony at Brechin, King John had the insignia of royalty, his scepter, crown, sword and ring stripped from him. Longshanks marched forward as far north as Elgin on a mission of conquest, seizing the opportunity which he had been patiently engineering for some time. The conquest of Scotland was now at hand once and for all. John Balliol was taken south to the Tower of London and was eventually released in 1299 to spend the rest of his life in exile on his French estates where he died blind and forgotten in 1313 - the very same year that the new king, Robert the Bruce, beat the English at Bannockburn. To future generations John Balliol is known as "Toom Tabard" or 'Tyne Tabard' (meaning empty coat), a cruel nickname which suggests that his personality was as unimpressive as his rule. The judgment is a harsh one, caught between the twin wheels of an ambitious, distinguished soldier and ruthless bully of a King - Longshanks, and the disloyalty of many powerful subjects, his cause was well-high hopeless from the very start. King Edward I (Longshanks) of England now had Scotland in his grasp. Just a few years previously he had conquered Wales in mush the same way, taking only 6 years to turn Wales into an annex of England completely under English rule. Doing the same to Scotland must now have seemed a formality. Longshanks himself left Scotland leaving matters to his trusted leaders, the situation with France had deteriorated and he had matters of a more important nature to deal with rather than the being present in Scotland for the final clean up. His contempt for Scots and their "miserable country" comes across clearly in a passing remark made to his soldiers when he is reported to have said "Bon besoigne fait qy de merde se delivrer" - "He who rids himself of shit does a good job". Scotland had been pacified at a minimum loss to England, with winter now upon them most of the English host returned south and was demobolised, leaving garrisons of hand-picked men in all the castles of Scotland. Longshanks doubtless congratulated himself on a good job well done. His self satisfaction must have been sort lived. North of the border, back in Scotland, Scotsman William Wallace - Hammer of the English - raised his head holding true to his family motto: "Pro libertate" - "FOR FREEDOM". Documented historical evidence of the line of Wallace is confusingly split. Some say he is descended from Richard the Welshman, dating back to the times of William the Conqueror - others have him traced back to the traditional Scots line of the Cragies. For reasons of simplicity and to keep with the theme of these pages, which focus manly on William Wallace and the reasons and situations that made him 'Scotland's greatest hero', we'll keep to the facts that are well known and true as much as is possible. William Wallace, second of three sons of Sir Malcolm Wallace was born on January 1272, (although many will debate the year to fall somewhere between 1270 and 1276 - 1272 seems to be the most precise in my research), in Scotland in the town of Elerslie (known now as Elderslie - see "Wallace Family"). His father, Sir Malcolm Wallace, although endowed with the title of a knight held little rank in the world of politics and the nobility of Scotland. He owned a certain amount of land under his title and lived a relatively peaceful life. The Scotland that William Wallace was raised in during the late 1200's was a wealthy country far removed from the beggarly picture of a nation which English propagandists were to paint. It is plain to see from the Great Cathedrals which still stand from Glasgow in the south to as far north as Dornoch. The magnificent abbeys and monasteries in Arbroath, Scone, Dunfermline and Cambuskenneth as well as the great palaces and house in Paisley, Kilwinning, Crossraguel, New Abbey, Dundrennan, Holyrood, Kelso, Jedburgh, Dryburgh and Melrose. It is clear that these marvelous buildings could only have been erected in a country possessed of considerable wealth and resources. Studded with hundreds of Castles, regal, baronial and knightly, the fortified homes of the landed classes: it was an age in which emerged a prosperous bourgeoisie. The powerful King Alexander II was on the throne and had not only the ability but the standing to fend off possible invaders. Around the time of Wallace's birth the then king of England, King Henry III died and was succeeded by the man who would one day become William's deadliest adversary - Edward I (Longshanks). On August 18th 1274 Edward was crowned at Westminster. He was 35 years old, tall, well proportioned and considerably above average height, he certainly deserved his nickname of Longshanks. William Wallace also grew up to become a powerful and sturdy young man, with a height of 6 foot 7 inches and a physique to match, he too was a giant of a man. It is often debated that it would have been impossible for such a man to exist in a time when the average height of a man was little over 5 feet. However, to judge by the clothing and armour of the time it is clear to see that not only was Longshanks a towering figure, even by today's standards, but so was William Wallace. It is also clear to see that in a time when to be considered 'middle aged', one would only have to be somewhere in the region of 20-25 years of age. In order for a man to become a leader and be successful in battle he either had to have been born into the rank, or like Wallace, earn the rank by feats of battle. In an era where strength, stamina, endurance, courage and, above all, skill in handling the sword and dagger were of paramount importance in the emergence of leaders - when warlike renown depended so essentially on a personal deeds of daring it would be impossible for him to be anything less than what he was. Had Wallace not been a man of considerable strength by what other means could the second son of an obscure knight, a mere youth just out of his teens, without the support or patronage of a single noble, have maintained himself, attracted followers, stuck fear into the enemy during face-to-face combat, secured the hatred of Edward Plantagenet I of England, and become the hero of a nation if he did not possess quite exceptional physical strength and prowess? However, it is not only his physical attributes which made William Wallace such a hero, his mental faculties were considerable. Where, and when, exactly William Wallace gained his education is a long and in-depth story which involves the telling of a rather long tale. In order to keep things simple we'll reflect on the disruptions which were in place before the crowning of John Balliol. Sir Malcolm Wallace was called to bear arms in a revolt know as 'the revolt of the Turnberry Band'. The idea was to issue a levie which would gather a force together in support of the House of Bruce. William now at the age of fourteen would surely have been page or esquire to his father, and possibly his elder brother, also called Malcolm. This would have been his first taste of military action, but the revolt - if it can be called that - fizzled out before it really started, peace and tranquillity reigned but that meeting on September 1286 had an important part to play in future events. For around 3 years there was an uneasy peace within Scotland - the calm before the storm if you like - and it is during this time of secret meetings and coming and going that William would have spent some time at Dunipace in east Stirlingshire where he lodged with an uncle, a younger brother of his father, who was the cleric there, at a chapelry of Cambuskenneth Abbey. William was showing his intellect that he could easily make a career in the Church, which was the traditional role for landless younger sons. Now at the age of 16 his education was taking a more mature direction. His uncle instilled in him moral maxims compactly framed in Latin, and referred frequently to the great classic authors. William's passion and love of liberty which would become his basis for his glorious career can also be credited to his uncle-priest who inculcated the very values and essence of freedom and liberty with in his mind. This was a precept which remained firmly implanted in William's mind till the end of his days. United again with his family, and now 17 years old, something else was to happen which would take William into the care of the church. During the time of his education (14 - 16 years old), John Balliol had been exiled and in order to restore the Guardians of Scotland back into govern Scotland they first had to pay homage to Longshanks. The taking of this oath had to be outright, and the deadline for taking the oath was set for July of that year. Responsibility for administering the oath for Ayrshire fell upon the hands of Sir Ranald Craufurd, William's grandfather - his mothers father. Anyone not paying homage to Longshanks was in for severe penalties, and when Sir Ranald noticed that Sir Malcolm Wallace's name was not on the list, and realising that retribution from the English garrisons, which now governed Ayr and Irvine (where they were), was about to descend upon Malcolm he took his daughter and her younger sons under his care. Sir Malcolm and his oldest son fled north leaving his wife Margaret and two youngest sons William and John behind. After a short while with Margaret's father Sir Ranald, he sent them all to Kilspindie in the Carse of Gowrie where they were kept by another uncle of William's - probably a brother of his mothers. As was the custom in those days, the younger brothers followed the education of the church while the eldest would inherit lands and title's. The uncle which he was now with was also a priest of the district and it was here, now at the age of 17 or 18 that William continued his education in Dundee. It was here that William met John Blair, who soon after became a Benedictine monk, following that he eventually left his monastery to attend his friend William and become his chaplain and comrade in arms. In this church school William also met and became friends with Duncan of Lorn and Sir Neil Campbell of Lochawe, both young men like William who were to take a major part in William's first exploits. Why such a well built and physically strong youth would follow the career of a priest is easily answered. As I have already said it was the custom for both the Wallace family (his fathers side) and the Craufurd family (his mothers side) to send the youngest sons to the church for their education, and in unsettled times as there were, it was prudent to have a firm grasp on languages and politics and the learning's of the church, as the church was a major power. Also with his older brother Malcolm and his father Sir Malcolm on the run in the north it was clear that William, being the largest and strongest family member would be in a good place to take care of his mother and his younger brother John. Oddly enough, Dundee was also one of the few places at this time where there was little revolt against the English takeover - he could sleep safely out of the way of the troubles. They may have felt, in their judgment, that these points were fairly insignificant compared to William Wallace's feats and daring. Personally I feel that it wouldn't have taken too much time to explain the situation surrounding his education and his family in a more accurate light. These comments in mind, it would make the situation of him traveling south after his families death to live with his uncle and his graveside meeting with Murron totally fictitious. But it did make for a good movie. The situation in Scotland was building into civil war, infighting between rival families and rival towns was heating up, as well as the fight against English occupation. Brawling turned to riots - riots turned to ambush and sporadic battles. Sir Malcolm Wallace was back in the south with his son Malcolm when one of these ambush type battles in 1291 at Loudoun Hill in Irvine saw the death of William's father. This was the start of William's personal resentment of the English which would later develop into utter hatred. He was now around 19 years of age, his mother was devastated and his older brother Sir Malcolm Wallace junior was now the head of the family. This is now the time for William to cast of the binds of the church and turn to his sword for the first time. He had grown up watching the people around him (his kinfolk) being split by infighting backed by the hand of the English. The cruel treatment of his oppressed country, the exile of his mother into hiding, the death of his father by an Englishman called Fenwick at a minor scuffle in Irvine: it was all too much for this 19 year old boy in a giants body to take. Throughout his life so far he would have been protected as a scholar of the church and the talk on the lips of his friends, who would also have had fathers and brothers already with sword in hand ready for the fight, would surely have been revenge. As a Scot he would have been more than ready to stand with his family and claim their rights in their own lands. Bear in mind that his first teachings had already installed in him the principals of liberty and the rights of the individual. The moment when he would strike the first blow in relation for his family's sufferings was not far off. Dundee castle was well under the control of the English and was now owned by Brian Fitz-Alan of Bedale, he had placed the castle under the control of a constable named Selby, this man was a hardened veteran with a great thirst for blood, and in particular the blood of the Scots. Selby had a son who was just slightly older than William. On a cold December day in 1291, young Selby caught sight of William, who not only stood out from the crowd as being someone worth picking a fight with because of his size, but also because of the bright green clothes that he wore. Young Selby, accompanied with a number of English friends pulled William aside and began to make remarks about his attire. "Thou Scot, abide; what devil clothed thee in so gay a garment? An Irish mantle were the right apparel for thy kind; a Scottish knife under thy belt to carry; rough shoes upon thy boorish feet." In saying these he was basically demanding the handsome dirk at William's belt. William's response was swift and dramatic; grabbing the Englishman by the collar, he drew his blade and thrust it through his assailant's heart. Selby's friends made a move on William, but the crowd which was quickly gathering around the dead Selby made it too difficult for these young men to draw their swords. This gave William just the few moments that it took to strike out with his dirk, kill or wound most of the gang and make his escape. He ran to the house of his uncle where he was greeted by the house keeper, he told her of what had just happened and she covered him in a red cloak and sat him in the corner of the room at the spinning-wheel. Moments later when the English guards came hunting for the young William they passed his uncle's house when they realised that the only occupants were two elderly ladies weaving and spinning. The ruse worked. It was announced that afternoon that there was a warrant out for the murderer of Selby's son, if the town didn't bring forth the murderer then the whole town would be burnt to the ground and everyone within it. William made his way home to his mother who having already heard the news was beside herself with worry. Everyone knew that it was William that they were after as no one else could fit the description of the man they wanted. William and his mother immediately left for Dunfermline, but William insisted that they return to Elerslie where they were from and her family was. After a cunning escape and quietly trudging their way to Elerslie they were met by Margaret's father Sir Ranald. Sir Ranald informed them that the news of Selby's son's death was quickly spreading, and a price had been placed on William's head and he was labeled an outlaw. Not wanting to make life difficult for himself he told them that he could look after his daughter but could do nothing for the outlaw William, his best advice was for them to split up and for William to join his uncle Sir Richard Wallace who lived in Riccarton. After some time William reached Riccarton by February 1292 and stayed there until April. Two uncles taught him the skills in the church and languages and the uncle he was with now after the Selby incident, Sir Richard Wallace, can be described as having been blinded, disabled and enfeebled through loss of blood in some previous skirmish he had with the English. Everything seemed quiet and William had found a friend in his uncle's page. It is reported that one day when he was fishing on the Irvine a garrison of English soldiers rode passed. The last five soldiers, who were impressed with William's catch decided that they should have it for themselves. When William exclaimed that the catch was intended for the super of an elderly knight, the English soldiers said that they had their permission to continue fishing in order to catch more. Everything was all very peaceful and when William asked if he could at least keep half of the catch as this would be 'fair', the ring-leader of the five Englishmen became angry at being talked to so familiarly by an upstart Scot; he drew his sword and lunged for William. William defended the blow with his fishing-pole and struck the soldier knocking him to his feet and sent his sword flying. William rushed for the sword in order to arm himself, he detached the head of the soldier with a hard blow to the neck and turned to the other soldiers who had already dismounted and were making their way to aid their fallen comrade. William's blood was boiling; he hacked one to the collar-bone, another he struck on the arm with such force that both sword and arm fell to the ground. While the other two made off, William quickly finished off the man he had just maimed by running him through with the English sword. On return to his uncle's house, he explained what had happened and told his uncle that he would leave his home in order to spare him the wrath of the English who would surely be soon on their way. He gathered together his possessions and William and his new page, who would also have been targeted with a price on his head, took to the woods in the north just like his father and brother had done a few years before. Meantime, John Balliol was about to be crowned and the divide in Scotland was thickening. William was now an outlaw for, what would have been seen as, multiple cold blooded murders. He was an outlaw, a criminal and a man with a price on his head. His family were scattered to various parts of southern Scotland, his father was dead and William had no choice but to fight or die, the penalties for what he had done was death. He was only 20 years old. The battle of Stirling Bridge, the sacking of York, the battle of Falkirk and William's execution all took place over a period of 8 years. We know that he was captured and executed in 1305, this would make William 33 years of age. The victory at Stirling bridge was in 1297, from there he invaded England and sacked many towns and fortified castles. 1298 saw his defeat and betrayal at Falkirk but he wasn't captured until 1305.  This leaves us with two blank spaces to be filled. The later being the 7 year period between his betrayal and his execution (which we will refer to in the final pages), and also the period between the incident at Irvine when he was 20 and his rise to become the leading force at Stirling bridge when he would have been 25 years old. What happened, and what was William Wallace doing during this period of 5 years before Stirling? As you can see I have called this section "Robin Hood?". My reason for this is because I would like to draw some comparisons between Scotland's national hero, and a vague figure from English folklore who is portrayed as the English outlaw/hero. After William had fled from his uncle's to the woods he spent the 5 year period I have talked about seeking revenge for what had happened to his family. You have to remember that in these time in the 13th century it was more than common place to take the law into your own hands, and the seeking of revenge for even trivial matters like the theft of a cow was punishable by whatever method the victim saw fit. If you know the story of Robin Hood you'll be able to understand clearly why I am drawing this "resemblance". As far as the English were concerned William was a dead man as soon as he showed face. He had nothing to lose at this point, if he surrendered he would surely have been put to the sword or the rope. From my impression of things he classed himself as 'dead already', something which to future generations the world over is what makes guerrilla warfare the most difficult to defend against, and easily the most lethal of weapons. It is quite possible that William Wallace could have had an attitude of 'if he was to go at least he could take as many as he could with him'. From his dwellings in the woods he would constantly attack and ambush anything with an English insignia on it, and with quite a brutal and unforgiving anger. He didn't do all of this single handed of course. He had previously made his way to gain the help and support of is kinsman Wallace of Auchencruive, and found refuge in the Leglen Wood on the banks of the River Ayr, this was one of his favourite hiding places, and in later years the woods was to be frequently visited by the bard Robert Burns who would go their every Sunday afternoon to pay his respects to his fellow Scot and someone with who he held great admiration for. The image of William and his kinfolk rampaging around the woods of lower Scotland attacking everything English, who by this time were more than hated by every local in practically every town, makes him appear as some kind of avenging angel crossed with a serial killer with an attitude. He did indeed attack at will and without provocation from many different places within lower Scotland, and this is what gained him the reputation as a great warrior within his own people and a feared and rumoured enemy with the English garrisons. No one ever knew where he would strike next or when. Word of the giant size of this man soon spread and his skill with not only the sword and dirk but the bow and arrow followed quickly behind. During a 3 year period of ambush and gathering local support to his, and their, fight, William would have easily gathered the knowledge and understanding of who his enemies were and how they drew up battle plans and tactics against his 'guerrilla' tactics, something which had never been done before. Until William Wallace no one had ever taken on an enemy in such a way - he had a new found talent for attacking and beating forces and garrisons of a much larger number than his. Fighting and hiding from within the great forests of Selkirk one can't help imagine that a man of such size would not be easy to hide. It is not a fanciful idea to say that he could easily have disguised himself and made way through the crowded markets crouched, hunched and stinking of unpleasant items in order to gain supplies and rally support. He had done it successfully in the past as a youth! One account tells us that he could not resist the challenge of an English churl who had a reputation for weight lifting. For fourpence he would let anyone hit him across the back with a rough pole which he carried. William offered the man 3 times his usual for the privilege, and subsequently hit the guy with such force as to break his back. The other soldiers present tried to overpower Wallace but he brained one with the cudgel and broke the neck of another, then drew his sword, felled a third and slashed through the armpit armour of a fourth. Including the churl. Wallace killed five Englishmen in this brief but bloody encounter before leaping on a nearby horse and making his escape back to his hiding place of Leglen Wood. Another account helped William's public image no end. In an attempt to come to the aid of a youth being accosted by English troops he bit off a bit to much and found himself backed up and overpowered. He was pressed down, tied up and taken to the Wardens prison. At this time he was only an outlaw and not wanted so much by Longshanks as simply wanted dead by the local garrisons. He was thrown into jail and left to die. The jailer was instructed to feed him only with bread and rotten herring, after quite some time, weekend and starved he was mistaken for being dead when he fell into a coma. News was spread that William Wallace was dead and his body was thrown onto a dung heap to be left to rot. In hearing that he was dead an old friend, namely his first nurse, made her way to the jail house and asked that she take the body away in order to give him a decent burial. Of course with William now dead and out of the way it seemed harmless enough to keep the locals happy by letting them bury him. She took William back to her house and began to clean and prepare him for a burial which he deserved. However, in cleaning him she noticed that he still had a signs of life and she began to spoon feed him, and even her daughter, who had a twelve week old baby, suckled young William and together they both brought him back from the brink. It is not uncommon to find certain coma cases to still show signs of primitive, natural reflex. About this time Sir Thomas Rymour of Ercildoune heard of the death of William and instantly sent a servant to find out what had happened. When the servant returned with the news that he was alive and had defied death to the point where it seemed he had actually returned from the grave, Sir Thomas Rymour, known to us know as simply 'Thomas the Rhymer", declared: For sooth, ere he decease, Shall many thousands in the field make end. From Scotland he shall forth the Southron send,  And Scotland thrice he shall bring to peace.  So good of hand again shall ne'er be kenned. Thomas the Rhymer, had already foretold the death of Alexander III and was widely regarded in his own lifetime as a soothsayer and prophet. Now that William was in good company having his name placed within the same mystical and supernatural circles as the great Alexander III, not only did the English as far south as London prick up their ears, but also William himself must have felt that he was something special and with a - now foretold - destiny, was there anything he couldn't do? He had stared death in the face and won. With his destiny in front of him it was not long before his kinsmen and fellow Scots rallied around him in support. It was also in these times that his taste for the young girls became a costly problem. Sneaking around romancing the young girls proved to be a game that cost him many a man in battles of escape and also landed him in compromising positions which almost lead to being captured - again. It wasn't until he met with Marion Braidfute, the eighteen year old daughter and heiress of Hugh Braidfute of Lamington that his heart was pierced by the arrows of love. William and Marion never married as William believed that romance and war did not mix, however, he did see Marion as much as possible secretly at her home. It is at this point that Marion is to have given birth to William's daughter. Many historians will deny that there is any evidence that William had any offspring, and if he had in fact married her then the history books would have definitely recorded the event. Marion was murdered shortly after the birth and this would only have spurred William into further action. Also during this time he was joined by his old friends Tom Halliday and Edward Little who were more than pleased to see that William was not, according to the rumours, dead. The other old friend who joined the band was John Blair, If you refer to the previous section regarding William's education, you'll remember that John Blair was the Benedictine monk who left his monastery to join his friend William. He spent the rest of his time with Wallace recording every move that they made. So allow me to quickly recap. We have a roving band of men making surprise attacks at English garrisons and troops. William, the leader, Marion his well-to-do mistress and, by this time, around 15 fellow Scots, one of whom was named Little (Edward Little), and a to add to the similarity a Benedictine monk. Sound familiar? It is not fanciful of me to draw this comparison. In the story of Robin Hood you have a giant of a man called Little John. It would be easy for such a man to be a mix up between the large frame of William, his friend Edward Little and possibly even William's younger brother John. Is it possible that his younger brother was with William, and if he were it wouldn't take much to assume that he would have been referred to as 'Little John' given the size of his older brother. If you think that I am over simplifying matters by saying that 3 people could have been fused into 1 person, and in turn that the story of Robin Hood could actually be the English making their own version of William Wallace in order to claim their own hero in an attempt to 'keep up with the Joneses' - then let me remind you that Mel Gibson took 3 of William's uncles and forged them together to create a character called "uncle Argyle" in order to keep his version more compact. The propaganda machine of English history? [ Read the best source here for more details http://troublecat.tripod.com/Braveheart/wallacehistory2.html ]