To draw a comparison again with the film 'Braveheart' and James Mackay's research, from which most of this information is gathered, we can safely point out that the movie displays a man that rose from a common farmers son to become one of the Guardians of Scotland within a very short period of time.
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".P> 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.
