Ask me about Scotland-----The historical background and deeds of William Wallace

When the name of William Wallace is mentioned, people will immediately think of the prosperous years of the Scottish national independence movement in the late 13th and early 14th centuries. Indeed, Wallace can be said to be the most legendary hero in British history. For seven centuries, later generations' interest and admiration for him can be said to be enduring. In the 15th century, the bard Harry (also known as Blind Harry) relied on the eleven volumes and 12,000 lines of Celtic epic

The legendary epic "The Song of Wallace" (The Walalth). ?lace) became famous for a while, and the cultural class rushed to circulate it. Since its publication in the 16th century, this book has become second only to the Bible in popularity in Scotland. The latest "Wallace craze" originated from the 1995 Hollywood blockbuster "Braveheart". The image of Wallace successfully portrayed by Mel Gibson captured the hearts of movie fans around the world, so much so that After the film was released, the Scottish Tourism Board launched a "filmtourism" project to meet the demands of tourists from all over the world. There were as many as 21,000 search links for "Braveheart" on the Internet. . It is worth mentioning that the movie script is adapted from Randall Wallace's best-selling novel published in 1995, and the novel was created and reprocessed based on "Song of Wallace". From the epics of the 15th century to the movies of the 20th century, they are undoubtedly continuing the "myth of William Wallace". So, we can’t help but ask, how far is the mythical Wallace from the historical Wallace?

1. A confusing life story

Most of the existing records about William Wallace focus on the period from September 11, 1297 when he led the troops to a glorious victory at the Battle of Sterling Bridge to July 1298. During this period he was defeated by King Edward I of England on 22nd March at Falkirk. As for his life experience, there are many doubts. So was Wallace a reckless hero or a knightly hero?

Among the chroniclers of Scotland in the 14th and 15th centuries, only Blind Harry and Walter Bower gave their character Wallace the status of a prominent knight. Others, such as John of Fordun and Andrew Wyntoun, did not deny Wallace's relatively humble family background, but they obviously did not want to pay too much attention to this issue and only described what he said. Possessing a strong physique and innate divine power. As for the movie "Braveheart", it seems to be leaning towards the latter approach.

Actually, "Wallace" (Wallace) is not a local Scottish surname but a nickname, and its original meaning is "a person from the Welsh Borders". According to historical records, in the 12th century, the ancestors of the Wallace family followed the Stuarts (the Stewarts) of Brittany descent from Shropshire, England, to Scotland as soldiers. Since David I (1124-1153), the Stuart family has inherited the position of royal steward and owns huge territories in Renfrewshire, Lanarkshire and Ayrshire in western Scotland. It is a powerful and powerful party. of great nobility. As vassals of the Stuart family, the Wallace family also received some fiefs in southwestern Scotland. According to Blind Harry, Eldersley in Renfrewshire was the birthplace of William Wallace, who received his childhood education at nearby Paisley Abbey. In his youth, Wallace lived in Riccarton, Ayrshire, which was the territory of his uncle Richard. Wallace's first shocking act as an adult was to kill the English Sheriff in Lanarkshire. From this point of view, there should be no doubt that Wallace emerged in the southwest of Scotland and maintained close relations with the Stuart family.

Another clue comes from a seal stamped on a letter in 1297. This letter was written by Wallace to the mayors of Lübeck and Hamburg after he came to power to request. Commercial. The seal is engraved with a line of Latin text such as "Willelmile Waleysfilii Alani", which means "William Wallace, son of Alan"; in addition, there is also a pair of bows and arrows painted on it, perhaps suggesting that Wallace was originally a professional archer. Crossbowmen made a living by hunting or even poaching in their early years. During Edward I's first conquest of Scotland in August 1296, no fewer than 1,500 Scottish lords signed a "Ragman Roll" to pledge their allegiance to the British king. One of them was named "Alan" ·AlanWalays. If this Alan is the father of William Wallace, then we may be able to conclude that Wallace came from a low-level knight family, but he himself was not a knight.

After the victory at Stirling Bridge, "by the unanimous consent of the kingdom and in the name of His Majesty John Balliol, King of Scotland", Wallace was canonized as "Knight, Lord Protector of Scotland" and the Commander-in-Chief of the Army." In a society like the Middle Ages that strictly paid attention to birth and hierarchy, such a rapid promotion cannot but be said to be a miracle.

2. Heroes and Beauties

When Mel Gibson and Sophie Marceau appeared as the male and female protagonists in the movie "Braveheart", moviegoers must have been looking forward to the relationship between heroes and beauties. That wonderful "chemical reaction" that occurs between them. Hollywood screenwriters have undoubtedly created a romantic love story for the audience in which "beauties cherish heroes, and heroes love beauties", completely ignoring the huge discrepancies with history. It's really laughable that Edward II's Queen Isabella, known as the "French She-Wolf" in history, was played by Sophie Marceau in such a sad and sentimental way. Most scholars believe that this plot is not worth refuting at all. In fact, the princess came to England from France three years after Wallace died, and Edward III was born seven years later.

In Blind Harry's "The Song of Wallace", there are only two women related to Wallace, one is his mother, and the other is Marianne Blade Ford (MarionBraidfute). The latter was originally the heiress of Lamington Castle in Lanarkshire and married Wallace at St. Kent's Church. On August 27, 1296, the Scots were defeated by the English at Dunbar. The following year, Wallace clashed with the highly motivated British army at Lanark and was outnumbered. He fled to his wife for refuge. Marianne was later captured by the British and executed on the orders of William Hesselrigg, the warden of Lanarkshire. In May 1297, Wallace killed Hasselrigg, fulfilling his revenge wish and rising to prominence since then.

This legendary wife appears in the movie as a key role in guiding Wallace’s spiritual destiny (but her status was reduced to a poor person, and their union became a private one. for life). If I remember correctly, at the beginning of the film, the background of the young Wallace's father heroically sacrificing his life to resist the English was designed. He then learned martial arts from his uncle, but when he grew up, he only wanted to stay with his sweetheart for the rest of his life. The murder of his wife shattered Wallace's dream and turned him from aloofness to the road of resistance without looking back. Such a plot arrangement will inevitably give people the feeling of "turning the crown into a beauty in anger", but it also shows the screenwriter's determination to portray Wallace as a love saint.

It is doubtful whether there really was such a Marianne Bradford in history. Because except for the sporadic fragments involving Wallace's private love life mentioned by Blind Harry, other chroniclers and biographers have said nothing about it. Later generations even pointed out that "Marian Bradford" was very similar to the name of one of Harry's neighbors, and they suspected that the poet had borrowed it. In fact, in "Wallace's Song", examples of similar grafting and "grabbing the beauty of others" are not uncommon. Blind Harry completed his masterpiece with the funding of a descendant of the Wallace family (Sir William Wallace of Craigie). It is conceivable that whether it was out of spiritual admiration or objective economic reasons , the poet will inevitably try his best to unfold the narrative traces in the creative process, in order to fulfill the wish of future generations to repay merit and virtue.

However, whether Marianne Bradford exists or not, it seems that the idea of ??"revenge for love" is not true. Because as early as August 1296, the words "WilliamleWaleys, thief" appeared on a legal judgment document in Lanarkshire. Looking back at the origin, the refusal to swear allegiance to the English king should be the beginning of Wallace's notoriety in 1296. In Edward I's view, the first conquest of Scotland in the summer of 1296 was a matter of strength and weakness, with no suspense at all. After the Battle of Dunbar, the reason why Scotland's nobles, large and small, signed the "Lageman Document", expressing their allegiance to the British King and recognizing him as the supreme lord of Scotland, was to obtain Edward I's acquiescence to their existing territories and titles. In fact, regardless of whether his father surrendered or not, if William himself did not surrender his loyalty to Edward I's "New England Dynasty", he would never enjoy the inheritance rights to the family territory and title. Hethelrigg, the county governor stationed in Lanark and Clydesdale by Edward I, held judicial power in southwestern Scotland and focused on punishing "rebels" like Wallace who refused to be loyal. This will inevitably cause consequences in the future. strong dissatisfaction and resentment. In addition, Blind Harry and Andrew Winton both mentioned in their books that shortly thereafter, Wallace's father and brother were murdered for their rebellion. If this is true, it will definitely strengthen Wallace's belief in taking up arms and fighting the English to the death.

3. With Robert the Bruce

The sudden death of Alexander III in 1286 and the subsequent extinction of the Canmore dynasty was the trigger that triggered domestic political turmoil in Scotland and the invasion of England. Between 1290 and 1291, 13 candidates with royal blood filed the "Great Cause" (the Great Cause) against King Edward I of England. The battle for the crown was actually mainly between John Balliol and Robert Bruce. Bruce and Stuart formed a huge family network in western Scotland through land enfeoffment and marriage. Although they lost the battle with Balliol for the throne, they never gave up their claim to the throne. During the reign of Balliol (1292-1296), they had a reputation as "troublemakers".

Edward I's war of conquest after 1296 was an excellent opportunity for them to make a comeback.

Many people regard William Wallace as a rebel hero, which is actually the greatest blasphemy to his reputation. Although the Wallace family had close feudal obligations to the Stuart-Bruce alliance, he himself remained loyal to the Balliol dynasty throughout his life. During Wallace's brief Protectorate Regency, Balliol, then imprisoned in the Tower of London, was still revered as the legitimate king of Scotland. Even after Wallace was forced to leave Scotland due to the defeat of Falkirk in 1298, he did not give up diplomatic efforts to rescue the former king.

Since Wallace was loyal to the Balliol dynasty, he must be full of doubts and vigilance towards the Bruce family, which had been coveting the throne. The reason why the Bruce family chose to side with Edward early was simply to use the power of the English to attack the Balliol faction and regain the throne. Therefore, Wallace's loyalty and prestige were also a threat to them. It can be said that "if people have different paths and do not work together, they will never be able to live together." Some historians even suspect that it was Robert the Bruce who betrayed Wallace, because John of Menteith (John of Menteith), who captured Wallace in 1305 and handed him over to the English, later became Robert I's favorite. .

In the 15th century, the pro-British policy pursued by James III of the Stuart dynasty once again aroused a strong backlash of Scottish nationalist sentiment. In this context, the historical status of William Wallace and Robert the Bruce (Robert I) was artificially elevated, and they became national heroes admired by the whole people. In the creation process of this heroic myth, John Barber's "Song of the Blues" and Blind Harry's "Song of Wallace" also played an important role. In order to highlight the spiritual consistency between the two heroes, they invented a plot in their books: In Falkirk, when the defeated Wallace met Bruce who was fighting on the side of the English, he scolded him. Timid and cowardly. Wallace's words were like a wake-up call, arousing the long-dormant will to resist in Bruce's heart. From then on, Bruce made up for his mistakes and returned to the patriotic camp. After Wallace was martyred, he inherited his legacy and continued to lead the fight against the English invaders. He eventually won the War of Independence and established the Bruce dynasty. Speaking of this, it is not difficult for readers to find that the movie "Braveheart" also completely copied this scene.

The most fatal fallacy in this carefully fabricated story is that the narrator completely confused three generations of Robert the Bruce. "Robert" is actually a name that has been used by the Bruce family. Robert, the sixth Earl of Carrick (1210-1295), was one of the 13 contenders for the throne in 1291, and Robert I (1274-1329) was already the eighth generation of the Bruce family. In the Battle of Falkirk, it was the seventh generation of Robert, the father of Robert I, who "treason and surrendered to the enemy". At this time, the attitude of Robert I (let's call him Robert the Younger) is not clear, but it is certain that after the war, he also participated in the resistance movement, and it is very likely that he continued to fight against Edward I with his father. There were differences on whether to surrender or not. However, when in 1302 the diplomatic mediation by Wallace in France and the papal court greatly increased the possibility of Balliol's return to the country for restoration, he once again deserted the patriotic camp and sought a compromise with Edward. Robert the Bruce's position as a staunch leader of the independence movement was established only after the martyrdom of Wallace in 1305. In 1306 he staged a coup and ascended to the throne, and in 1314 he achieved a decisive military victory over Edward II at Bannockburn. In the Treaty of Northampton in 1328, Edward II formally recognized him as King of Scotland and completely renounced his claim to suzerainty over Scotland. Although Robert I is worthy of the title of "national hero", at least between 1297 and 1305, his rebellion and rebellion showed his own hesitation in how to achieve the family's royal hegemony, which naturally cannot be compared with Wallace's loyalty, selflessness and bravery are comparable. Objectively speaking, aristocrats are absolute realists, and the value of Wallace lies in his persistence and dedication to the ideal of freedom.

In fact, there are many inconsistencies with history in the literary and film works about William Wallace. The above are just two or three examples for the benefit of interested readers. It is said that Sharon LKrossa, an authoritative American expert on medieval history, listed no less than 18 historical errors in less than two and a half minutes of watching the movie "Braveheart." Of course, we ordinary viewers don’t need to compare every penny with her, but if you really want to have a comprehensive and fair understanding of Wallace, you might as well read three books that have the effect of “setting the record straight.” One is William Wallace: Man And Myth (Sutton, 2001) by Graeme Morton.

The other book is "In The Footsteps of William Wallace, Sutton, 2002" co-authored by historian Alan Young and photographer Michael J. Stead. It can be said that both pictures and texts are the best. If the two books in the British Sutton edition are serious academic works, then Colin McArthur's "Brigadoon, Braveheart and the Scots - The Distortion of the Image of Scotland in Hollywood Movies" (Brigadoon , Braveheart And The Scots—Distortions of Scotland in Hollywood Cinema, L. B. Tauris, 2003) is more targeted, and its criticism of the film has expanded from the content level to the criticism of aesthetic taste and creative concepts. In "Braveheart", there are many intentionally designed ideological symbols, such as the unique Scottish thistle, kilts and Highlands (there is actually no evidence that the Scots in the thirteenth century wore kilts, kilts, and kilts). Rice is not from the Highlands either. At the beginning of the film, the scene where the young Marianne picked a bunch of thistles and gave them to Wallace could not happen in real life, because it would have to make her hands bleed), and There are bagpipes playing repeatedly in the background and so on. Although this may not be the original intention of the film's creators, it does cater to the irrational demands of some far-right groups in current Western society. In any case, perhaps as Maurice Halbwachs, a famous French expert on the history of mentality, said, "The success of an artist depends on his ability to serve as a gathering point of symbols, attracting those who are not directly related to his works. "Various emotions", in this sense, "Braveheart" has its own way of success in winning the Oscar statuette and becoming a global hit.

Perhaps only historians would show complete disdain for it, but in this regard