Hello friends.
When people think of Scottish History, they tend to think of two things.
The first being the Jacobite era, largely thanks to its recent popularisation by certain
book series and TV shows.
The second, however, is almost invariably the Scottish Wars of Independence between
1296 and 1314.
You need but take a quick glance at this time period and it quickly becomes clear why this
is the case.
It's an era that blends everything from tragedy to drama and heroism, packed to the brim with
fascinating historical figures.
Everyone from the unerringly ambitious Robert the Bruce to the ruthless and seemingly unbeatable
Edward I of England.
But there's one figure from this time period that tends to stick in our minds far more
than any other.
That would be William Wallace.
He's become arguably the most famous character from Scottish history, a towering freedom
fighter from humble beginnings rising up to face a foreign invasion and defend his country.
In the centuries since his death he's become increasingly larger than life, a folklore
superhero celebrated by everyone from Victorian aristocrats to certain Australian film-stars.
His martyr's death at the hands of Edward I has only cemented his image as a tragic
hero who's fame will last for many years to come.
There's just one issue with this image, though.
This?
Isn't William Wallace.
Neither is this.
And this most certainly isn't.
Our perception of Wallace as a chivalrous hero, and to great extent his legend as a
whole, can be attributed to a particular 15h Century poet named Blind Harry.
A courtier of James III of Scotland, he wrote the poem entitled 'The Actes and Deidis of
the Illustre and Vallyeant Campioun Schir William Wallace' (we'll shorten that to 'The
Wallace') in the 1480s, which has largely defined our common image of Wallace and his
story.
It's important to note that Harry wrote his poem almost two hundred years after the death
of William Wallace, that his name wasn't Harry and that he probably wasn't actually blind.
Though he claims to have based this poem on a book by Father John Blair, an old friend
of Wallace's, no evidence of this book's existence has ever been found.
Generous historians have suggested that Harry was perhaps employing this idea of a source
as a literary device.
Others simply argue that he was making it up.
Speaking of making things up, that's certainly something you can accuse Harry of doing quite
frequently in 'The Wallace'.
On several occasions he mis-attributes actions to his main character, such as the raids on
Aberdeen; he depicts Wallace burning numerous English ships in the burgh's harbour, even
though there is no evidence to suggest that Wallace ever made it as far north as Aberdeen
during his time as a rebel against English occupation.
It seems far more likely that such an attack would have been conducted by Andrew Murray,
another Scottish rebel and ally of Wallace's who died either during or shortly after the
Battle of Stirling Bridge.
So if our current image of William Wallace is inaccurate, what might be closer to the
truth?
Historians studying this time period in the hopes of finding out more about our elusive
national hero have had to rely on a lot of conjecture and theorising, because there simply
isn't a whole lot of material to go on.
Wallace is somewhat unusual compared to other famous figures of the time; as the youngest
son of a very minor landholder, he wasn't exactly born into greatness, and as such most
chronicles and sources from the era ignored him until he started making waves in 1296.
Nonetheless, there are still some facts we can draw about who he was from the information
we have currently.
Firstly, it seems clear that we need to abandon our image of Wallace as a sword-swinging chivalrous
frontlines fighter.
Because in truth?
He was less like this, and more like this.
That is to say, the evidence we have suggests that Wallace was in fact an archer.
Its a profession he appears to have been rather proud of because, as historian Fiona Watson
points out, he chose the image of the bow for his seal on the Lubeck Letter.
This fits in with his status as the younger son of a minor landholder: with no title or
lands to inherit, he would have had to have found his own way in the world, and it seems
he chose to do this using his skills with the bow.
There's some disagreement as to just how Wallace made a living with these skills.
Fiona Watson points to records from an English army court in 1296, describing one William
Wallace as a thief and poacher active in the Selkirk area, as evidence of Wallace being
an outlaw in the period before he entered into Scottish politics.
Archivist Andrew Fisher, on the other hand, argues that Wallace was perhaps a soldier
or even a mercenary.
He points to the military experience that Wallace demonstrated through his effective
command of military forces at the Battle of Stirling Bridge, suggesting that he had taken
part in conflicts and wars before.
What makes this argument so intriguing is that the war Wallace likely fought in to gain
this military experience was Edward I's invasion of Wales.
It's one of those fascinating ironies of history that Wallace might well have once fought for
the king he would later fight so hard against.
Due to the scarce resources we have relating to Wallace, its not entirely clear which of
these two views is the correct one.
Perhaps he was first a mercenary who later turned to banditry when opportunities for
his initial work dried up.
Unless some rather shocking and unprecedented new sources are discovered in the future,
however, its likely we'll never really know for certain.
Wallace is a figure shrouded in mystery and myth, arguably more of a folklore legend these
days than he is a historical figure thanks to all the tales told of him.
You might be left wondering just why William Wallace is such an enduring figure, if we
know so little about him.
But for me at least, the answer seems clear.
We know the motives of figures like Robert the Bruce and John Comyn; they were the apparent
'great men' of the time vying for political power.
Wallace's motives remain unknown, however, which makes him a perfect blank slate onto
which we can pour our own views.
In Blind Harry's time, King James III was making the controversial move of trying to
improve relations with England, something that didn't go over too well with some of
his citizens.
In William Wallace, Harry found the makings of a perfect anti-English hero figure to rally
like-minded Scots around.
The Victorians, meanwhile, inspired by the tales of Sir Walter Scott and Jane Porter,
found Wallace to be an ideal figurehead for their notions of 'unionist-nationalism'.
In the post-Braveheart modern era, Scottish nationalism has benefited greatly from the
image of Wallace as a freedom fighter for an independent Scotland.
Wallace's legend has endured precisely because we know so little about him.
He's an enigma, straddling the lines between many social and political classes whilst remaining
relatable to each of them.
Yet whilst heroes are vital in all eras, whether we're 15th Century bards or modern students
of history, it is also important that we understand our heroes as well as we can.
Myths and legends are fun, but we cannot lose sight of the real history they have been inspired
by.
Thank you for watching, friends.
If you enjoyed this video, feel free to share it with others or share your thoughts below.
If you did not, the dislike button is of course available as well.