Another post based on real history (maybe I should start watching the History channel more often). What would happen of these two met on the battlefield?
If you go by Braveheart, Wallace would be the clear winner – but one doesn’t become a conquering King by luck alone.
Who wins?
Once again, I am not keen on their historic martial prowess. Some research will be needed on this one.
I have to say Wallace takes the crown (lol pun). He is a bethemoth on the battlefield and hell took execution well too. If it was one on one, I see Wallace and Edwards in a fierce claymore duel ending when Wallace downs the older conquerer. Then Wallace would finish the downed ruler, take his crown and go back to the nearest tavern for a celebration.
In terms of armies, hmmm…that is when I must come back to you.
gotta root for the home team. i think wallace would win in a one on one fight because i doubt that longshanks(that bastard who murdered my ancestors)could deal with wallace’s fighting style which was to swing his claymore around and around until something was dead so in my opinion wallace wins the one on one. now in the army category,when wallace started his uprising most of the scotish race was already wiped out and longshans had france on his side.
so i think longshanks would win that by numbers although he would take a major beating
Okay, firstly, for all those people who hate Edward I for conquering Scotland, it was partly Scotland’s fault. Don’t yell at me, I love Scotland, but Scotland asked for Edward to step in and rule them. Of course it was the nobles that did that and without the consent of the commoners, but still. They asked for it. And Longshanks wasn’t a bastard. He was a brilliant king and they were in a WAR. What the bloody hell do you think happens in wars? People die. Again, don’t get me wrong, I love Scotland and I have strong Scottish ancestry, but one cannot hate someone else becasue they happened to be on the winning side of a war. As for who would win: Well with armies England is going to win. Verily there is no contest. Scotland might fight with a ton of courage and heart, but against combined English, French, Irish, and Welsh forces under a ruler who had spent a good deal of his reign conquering other countries, the Scots would not have a chance of winning. Maybe some battles, but not the war. And just Wallace against Longshanks? William Wallace would win i think. He was younger and at that time, Edward was kind of dieing. so if you’re going to take pride in a younger, healthier man beating an older dieing man simply because said older dieing man was a smart king, by all means root for Wallace. Though who knows, Edward might still win in a duel with just the two of them. brains and cunning almost always win out over muscle and brawn.
by the way i am related to longshanks thank you very much!!!!!!!!!!!
Wallace was said to be 6″7′, but at the time the average heught was around 5 feet, so i doubt he could be that tall, especially when the only sources indicating his height were scottish…longshanks however was proven to be tall, thus why he was called ‘longshanks’…so the size may have given edward an advantage over wallace, due to longer reach
Wallace No doubt !!. We are Scotland for no longer shall we be taking the scraps that England throw away . Weve proven in the past that Scotland was made for 1 Country and 1 country it shall be . All these scottish people that think we need England then Im dissaponted that were both Scottish . We are scotland not England ! . Great Britain or United Kingdom its all lies . How come the national Anthem for Great Britain is the English anthem have you ever thought about that . Flower of Scotland . Scotland the Brave .
Dang…just finished watching Braveheart again…and I have class tomorrow! Hooray for 3 hours of sleep!
So obviously, I’m horribly biased given the timing…go Gibson’s William Wallace!