Was William Wallace a "Braveheart" or a "Blackheart"?
William Wallace was born during the 1270s and died in 1306, yet he is still known as one of Scotland's greatest heroes for fighting to free Scotland from English rule. This essay will cover both "Braveheart" and "Blackheart" theories but eventually come to the conclusion that he is both.
Wallace could be considered to be a "Blackheart" as he showed signs of cruelty. An example of his cruelty was when he attacked North England, he and his army marched through several villages and slaughtered innocent people including woman, children, monks and nuns. This shows that he cared little about other people and may have only done it to attract attention from Edward I. This proves that he may
…show more content…
Taking responsibility showed that William Wallace was loyal to his country, although he was not guardian of Scotland anymore. This would suggest that Wallace might be a "Braveheart".
He could be a "Blackheart" because he stole and he was known to be a thief. William Wallace was spotted with a group of of Englishmen stealing a keg of beer in Perth, Scotland, from Matthew of York, who then took them to court. Although William Wallace was not leading the robbery he was still charged with theft. Due to the participation of Wallace during the robbery shows that he thought very little about who he was stealing from and had no respect for the people that lived in his country. This robbery supports that William Wallace was a "Blackheart"
During the Battle of Stirling he was both "Braveheart" and "Blackheart". Wallace was a "Braveheart" because of the use of the bridge and gained victory at the end but probably, Wallace's army wouldn't have won if it was a field battle as they were vastly out numbered and very had very little cavalry. William Wallace's use of the bridge shows that he had good initiative and quick thinking. This evidence supports the theory that he is a