Movies vs Life

Always up for debate, who among our movie heroes is stronger or a better. For example: Who would win in a fight? Maximus from Gladiator or William Wallace from Braveheart. Interesting debates and fun for those involved especially since we all know Maximus would tear ass. But a more interesting question: Who would win: The movie character or the real life man or woman? For our first installment we shall use Sir William Wallace himself. Since Maximus is more of an amalgamation of Roman Generals than an actual historical figure. He'd still tear Wallace a new one though.

William Wallace as played by Mel Gibson

Standing 5' 10" according to IMDB which seems a little generous to me. William's father was killed for opposing the English King and he was taken away by his uncle to be educated in the ways of the world. A commoner he returns to Scotland as a man to court the love of his life, start a family and bomb rocks at Brendan Gleason's face. After his lady is killed by English soldiers who were just trying to get a little action he erupts in a fury and begins offing all the Limey's he can find. Starting with the local magistrate and all his cronys before moving up to the local English Noble and most of his guards. The Scottish nobles for the most part refuse to support him but a few do in hopes that by flexing their muscles the English will grant the money and titles to avoid bothering with actual combat. A correct assumption and a strategy they had been employing for some time. Not this time though, not with Wild Bill Wallace on the scene. He goads the English into a fight and soundly wipes the floor with them. Successive battles go equally bad for the English and Wallace even sacks the English town of York. Wallace himself lead the battles but for all his triumphs he was betrayed by Robert the Bruce, a man he thought he could trust but who was swayed but the lust for power promised him by King Edward the Longshanks. It's a sad day when the Irish are more reliable than one of your best friends. Wallace is then tried executed (after nailing the French English Queen to be and thus impregnating her and insuring the next King of England will be a Franco/Scot hybrid...a chilling thought) drawn and quartered and taken to all corners of Britain. Then of course is the glorious ending where Robert the Bruce and the rest of the Scottish army storm the field at what was supposed to be his coronation ceremony and rout the English army on hand to oversee it.

Sir William Wallace

Born around the year 1270 in Scotland, Sir William Wallace was actually a minor noble as his family was descended from the House of Stuart. He was rumored to be a petty thief who gained favour from a uncle who was a local sheriff. Wallace was having trouble not killing the local English soldiers. Much as the movie depicted he slowly escalated his attacks against the English, more so out of necessity than intent as they were trying to capture a known criminal. After he became a wanted man he hid in the woods of the Highlands and made numerous guerrilla attacks against the English gaining experience in fighting them and knowledge of their tactics. This was not a oft use tactic in these times but Sir William was a master. There is tell of one English strong man who would for a price allow people to strike him over the back with a pole. William not to be outdone offered the man 3 times his usual price and the proceed to hit him with such force it broke his back. The Englishman's comrades moved to assist him and were swiftly brained by Wallace as well.

Scotland was ripe for rebellion as it's sons were being used as fodder in England's current conflict with France. And as Wallace's fight gained momentum in the south of Scotland, another in the north under a Scot name Andrew Murray led an even more successful rebellion. With the majority of country liberated the two rebels or patriots depending on your perspective faced open war conflicted with England. The Battle of Stirling Bridge was a stunning upset for the Scots as the routed the English soldiers and killed a despised English noble who's skin was used to make a kickass belt for Wallace's sword. The battle also so the wounding and subsequent death of Andrew Murray leaving Wallace as commander of the the Scottish army. Local investigator Horatio McCain had alleged that Murray's wounds appeared to come from Scottish and not English weapons but before he could show his evidence he was found dead in his sleep. Apparently he had died after choking to death on a combination of his sunglasses and an overwhelming ego. Wallace continued his tear across the countryside and his power grew with each victory until he was eventually influencing policy for the country including convincing the Pope to name a one of his boys from the neighborhood to high ranking Bishop's post. He eventually took the war to northern England where he is accused of committing most his atrocities. Most likely not a unfounded accusation seeing as in Wallace's eyes his countrymen had experienced nothing different at the hands of the English.

Before all this Edward I had been at odds with the English nobles and on the verge of civil war at their displeasure with his wars in France and Scotland. Had Wallace done nothing England eventually would've been thrown into turmoil and probably not even bothered with the upstart Scots. But this stunning defeat at Stirling and then the following invasion united them behind Edward. Sir William also made the mistake of underestimating the power of the combined forces and at the Battle of Falkirk he suffered a huge defeat with the difference coming from Welsh archers. (Maybe some irony as the name Wallace means Welshman). Commander of the Welsh archers Sir Christano Baleos is purported to have felled nearly 100 Scots himself with his eyes closed and using his wrong hand. After his defeat at Falkirk the other Scottish nobles took control of the army and Wallace turned to travelling statesman attempting to garner support from the rest of Europe. This was successful in gaining some support from the French but they eventually withdrew their support when they needed English help putting down a rebellion of their own. This of course is where the old axiom "Never trust a damn Frenchman" comes from. Sir William was eventually made an outlaw by both the English and the Scots when he continued to oppose English rule and his life was declared forfeit. Wallace's downfall was his blind idealism, he would accept no compromise from the English even though outright victory was essentially impossible. After he was turned over to the English by another Scot not wanting to deal with the raving lunatic, he was tried as a traitor and then hanged drawn and quartered. A martyr was made.

In conclusion, any man who gets pissed off by showboats and breaks their back with a pole and then proceeds to brain their friends with any random weapon at hand is clearly a better man than a foolish little man who gets tricked by a guy with two first names. Clearly you never trust someone with two first names, it's just not right. Though if he actually had been able to shoot fireballs from his eyes and bolts of lightning from his arse it'd be a whole new story.