What do you think?
Rate this book
William Wallace
By no means prepared by birth, education or training for leadership, Wallace nevertheless rose to prominence during the Wars of Independence, leading forces which broke the sequence of English victories and re-energising and inspiring his countrymen in the process. While others, ostensibly his betters, yielded and collaborated, Wallace set an example of constancy and perseverance and became the Guardian of Scotland. Even his terrible death in London in 1305 can be seen as a victory as it provided inspiration for the continuance of the struggle against English domination. Despite Wallace's almost mythical status—boosted in no small part by the film Braveheart—present-day perceptions of him are not always based on the objective analysis of the historical facts. In this revised and expanded biography, Andrew Fisher investigates all the aspects of Wallace's life and character, treating him as a man of his time. The result is a more authentic picture of the greatest of Scotland's heroes than has been previously available.
256 pages, Paperback
First published March 1, 2000
34 people are currently reading
561 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews
October 17, 2025
William Wallace is an enigma. The facts that we know about him mostly span the time from his rise to prominence as a Scottish freedom fighter (or terrorist) and end with his gruesome execution in London. In all, they cover less than 10 years and even then, they are spotty at best. As such, any historian that chooses to write about Wallace is going to include a lot of speculation, and Andrew Fisher is no exception.
In light of the speculation, it’s easy for biographers to make Wallace into the person they want him to be. Fisher credibly points out the various personas that writers have created over the years. Wallace has been depicted as the inadequate commoner upstart, the criminal murderer of English subjects, and the larger-than-life hero of the Scots (think Braveheart.)
Fisher himself takes a more reasoned look at William Wallace. He uses a combination of the available facts about Wallace and other people of the time, the larger historical picture as it is known, and a reasoned examination of human nature to arrive at speculations that strive to achieve probable conclusions.
In support of Fisher’s assertions, is his extensive research, all of which is footnoted throughout the book. This level of scholarly effort imparts credibility to his opinions. It was this impressive feature that led me to believe in Fisher’s version of Wallace. It also allowed me to form my own opinions with an assumed level of confidence.
My understanding from Fisher’s work is that the vast majority of the Scottish nobles were heavily invested in English lands. Therefore, they must have desired a nuanced form of independence wherein they could keep their English-based wealth while accepting a tolerable level of English involvement in their own land. As such, they backed Wallace to a point and abandoned Wallace altogether by the time of his execution. They used Wallace, the commoner, as a tool to achieve their "noble" aims.
Wallace poked England in the eye at Stirling Bridge and then, as was likely orchestrated by the nobles, Wallace was defeated at Falkirk. Wallace’s success was the show of strength that limited Scottish oppression. Wallace’s loss was the act that allowed the Scottish nobles to ask for forgiveness. The disavowment of Wallace, the commoner, was a relatively small price to pay in comparison to the wealth that the nobles preserved in the bargain. To Andrew Fisher’s credit, he not only brought this belief to life, he also made it viable.
In light of the speculation, it’s easy for biographers to make Wallace into the person they want him to be. Fisher credibly points out the various personas that writers have created over the years. Wallace has been depicted as the inadequate commoner upstart, the criminal murderer of English subjects, and the larger-than-life hero of the Scots (think Braveheart.)
Fisher himself takes a more reasoned look at William Wallace. He uses a combination of the available facts about Wallace and other people of the time, the larger historical picture as it is known, and a reasoned examination of human nature to arrive at speculations that strive to achieve probable conclusions.
In support of Fisher’s assertions, is his extensive research, all of which is footnoted throughout the book. This level of scholarly effort imparts credibility to his opinions. It was this impressive feature that led me to believe in Fisher’s version of Wallace. It also allowed me to form my own opinions with an assumed level of confidence.
My understanding from Fisher’s work is that the vast majority of the Scottish nobles were heavily invested in English lands. Therefore, they must have desired a nuanced form of independence wherein they could keep their English-based wealth while accepting a tolerable level of English involvement in their own land. As such, they backed Wallace to a point and abandoned Wallace altogether by the time of his execution. They used Wallace, the commoner, as a tool to achieve their "noble" aims.
Wallace poked England in the eye at Stirling Bridge and then, as was likely orchestrated by the nobles, Wallace was defeated at Falkirk. Wallace’s success was the show of strength that limited Scottish oppression. Wallace’s loss was the act that allowed the Scottish nobles to ask for forgiveness. The disavowment of Wallace, the commoner, was a relatively small price to pay in comparison to the wealth that the nobles preserved in the bargain. To Andrew Fisher’s credit, he not only brought this belief to life, he also made it viable.
August 19, 2023
The trouble with any biography of William Wallace is the lack of reliable facts for any researcher to work with. Fisher is to be commended for extensive research, but even he has to resort to a lot of speculation to pad out what is known. Undisputable is Wallace's standing as a hero in Scotland, both as an uncompromising fighter for independence, and more importantly, the right of any people to be free.
September 3, 2021
William Wallace
"I have brought you into the ring; now see if you can dance."
A man of unparalleled courage in the face of an hitherto invincible army. What lowly man of mediocre birth could lead a proletarian army in defending a nation's independence against the elite class of experienced knights and earls? William Wallace.
Though Wallace is famous especially for the two battles, namely Stirling Bridge and Falkirk, he was instrumental in other affairs such as sailing to France from 1299-1303 and travelling to Rome in diplomatic missions to bring attention to Philip IV The Fair and Pope Boniface VIII Scotland's suffering, in the hope that both would write letters reprimanding Edward I's actions. In this quest, Wallace also succeeded in recovering John Balliol, locked away in the Tower of London, as evidenced by Pope Boniface VIII's letter to Edward I request to leave Scotland in peace. That peace did not last a year.
Wallace's aim for Scotland was always conservative in mind. He believed in the feudal rule of primogeniture, and the bloodline kingship with divine rights. It was therefore his mission to restore John Balliol to the crown, as the rightful king of Scots - inaugurated first in 1292. Not surprisingly, this stepped on some toes of the nobles, namely that of John Comyn and Robert the Bruce, both having their own ideas of who ought to rule.
From the ill-fated battle of Dunbar in 1296, another man came to light in relation to Scotland's fight, that of Andrew de Morey.
He escaped prison at Chester and would seize Urquhart, Inverness, and Elgin castles: at the same time down South Wallace was doing the same. It was almost inevitable these two would meet as allies in 1297 for the battle at Stirling Bridge. Of the two battles that Wallace is most famous for, it is the battle at Falkirk that brought more intrigue. Who really won that day? Who really lost? The accepted popularist-view is that Wallace lost outright, but history may prove that it wasn't a forgone conclusion. Edward's elite army of experienced, and well-armoured, cavalry, bowmen, and infantry, took a serious-enough hit from only Wallace's schiltron-formation - and having dealt with his cavalry abandoning him on the field - that Edward's only recourse was to return to England, after total determination of wanting to lay waste to Scotland in pursuit of Wallace.
Wallace's name survived the ordeal of being considered a traitor and outlaw, and became Scotland's National hero, in defiance of oppression. His name became famous internationally, as well - even for the French Revolution. It seems strangely ironic that it should be from a man destined for the church - whose name may never had entered into history had it been the case - that would fight the English nation bounded as a Christian nation, as a means of overcoming the tyrannical occupation. It rings similarities with Roman occupation of Israel, and; Wallace, when brought to London to be executed in excruciating pain, in likeness of Jesus on the cross, was even given a crown of thorns in mockery of his status being king of the outlaws, with inadvertent likeness to Jesus being King of the Jews.
"I have brought you into the ring; now see if you can dance."
A man of unparalleled courage in the face of an hitherto invincible army. What lowly man of mediocre birth could lead a proletarian army in defending a nation's independence against the elite class of experienced knights and earls? William Wallace.
Though Wallace is famous especially for the two battles, namely Stirling Bridge and Falkirk, he was instrumental in other affairs such as sailing to France from 1299-1303 and travelling to Rome in diplomatic missions to bring attention to Philip IV The Fair and Pope Boniface VIII Scotland's suffering, in the hope that both would write letters reprimanding Edward I's actions. In this quest, Wallace also succeeded in recovering John Balliol, locked away in the Tower of London, as evidenced by Pope Boniface VIII's letter to Edward I request to leave Scotland in peace. That peace did not last a year.
Wallace's aim for Scotland was always conservative in mind. He believed in the feudal rule of primogeniture, and the bloodline kingship with divine rights. It was therefore his mission to restore John Balliol to the crown, as the rightful king of Scots - inaugurated first in 1292. Not surprisingly, this stepped on some toes of the nobles, namely that of John Comyn and Robert the Bruce, both having their own ideas of who ought to rule.
From the ill-fated battle of Dunbar in 1296, another man came to light in relation to Scotland's fight, that of Andrew de Morey.
He escaped prison at Chester and would seize Urquhart, Inverness, and Elgin castles: at the same time down South Wallace was doing the same. It was almost inevitable these two would meet as allies in 1297 for the battle at Stirling Bridge. Of the two battles that Wallace is most famous for, it is the battle at Falkirk that brought more intrigue. Who really won that day? Who really lost? The accepted popularist-view is that Wallace lost outright, but history may prove that it wasn't a forgone conclusion. Edward's elite army of experienced, and well-armoured, cavalry, bowmen, and infantry, took a serious-enough hit from only Wallace's schiltron-formation - and having dealt with his cavalry abandoning him on the field - that Edward's only recourse was to return to England, after total determination of wanting to lay waste to Scotland in pursuit of Wallace.
Wallace's name survived the ordeal of being considered a traitor and outlaw, and became Scotland's National hero, in defiance of oppression. His name became famous internationally, as well - even for the French Revolution. It seems strangely ironic that it should be from a man destined for the church - whose name may never had entered into history had it been the case - that would fight the English nation bounded as a Christian nation, as a means of overcoming the tyrannical occupation. It rings similarities with Roman occupation of Israel, and; Wallace, when brought to London to be executed in excruciating pain, in likeness of Jesus on the cross, was even given a crown of thorns in mockery of his status being king of the outlaws, with inadvertent likeness to Jesus being King of the Jews.
August 8, 2018
Obviously, this book was incredibly well-researched and thought out. I enjoyed reading it and learned a lot, but the author seemed to expect that the reader already had a basic understanding of Wallace's story, its main points, and the main people who have written about him over the years. I was looking for something more along the lines of: "here's who Wallace was, here's what he did," etc. This book was more like, "now, you know this part of the story already, but here's why it may or may not be true." Still a good read, but maybe not the best for readers who know very little about Wallace going in.
August 8, 2022
We know so very few concrete indisputable facts and details about William Wallace, that even after reading this definitive book, it begs a reader to ask: why bother? He's the Scottish Robin Hood, in the matter that so little is known, we may as well make up the details ourselves, just as they did in the film Braveheart. He's a legend and impossible to know as a person (the chief pleasure I derive from biography), so elusive and mysterious that he might as well be Robin of Locksley or even King Arthur.
Here's what we do know for certain: nothing until the battle of Stirling Bridge other than the idea that he was not Scottish nobility, that he was a field general at that occasion in 1297 according to modern parlance, that he did not agree to pledge fealty to King Edward I of England after that date even though the majority of Scottish nobility including the legendary Robert the Bruce did, that he lost at Falkirk when his cavalry failed him, that he was captured due to internal Scottish treachery, and that his trial and execution were exceptionally one sided and cruel even by the standards of the time. What Fisher persuasively and eloquently establishes from the mythology of posthumous hindsight is primarily that William Wallace did not give in to political and personal expediency and gain. He did not accede to English fealty. These can be deduced by the rare vitriol that Edward I reserved personally for him. He gave mercy to nearly all other Scottish rebels except for Wallace. For some reason, Wallace was particularly suitable to be made an example of. He was an outlaw in all senses. He was even so extreme that Scots betrayed him for political expediency. He wasn't even much of a hero in his own day: his death didn't elicit much outrage and he wasn't even a close ally of the ultimate beneficiary, Robert the Bruce. And yet, by the time of the 17th century, Wallace is a Scots exemplar of the freedom fighter as demonstrated by the massive rebellions against monarchy in that time period.
Why? Probably because of his staunch and unflinching, fatal yet admirable refusal to compromise Scottish sovereignty. That he paid the ultimate price over centuries of Scottish futility. That he didn't live to see the triumph of Bannockburn but is seen as a precursor and necessary sacrifice to make that independence possible. Although the film Braveheart completely gets the battlefield details willfully wrong (Stirling Castle, where Mel Gibson gives his impassioned speech for freedom was not fought on flat ground but was rather a rout from high ground and a dismal failure from English eyes with their backs to a river and bridge that was comically inept and a brutal massacre), perhaps it does get the politics right and the futility correct. The most accurate part is probably Wallace's desperate attempt to the get the Scottish nobility unified in the cause of freedom, an impossible task that probably led to this downfall. He was literally one generation ahead of his time, and though the film's fanciful and completely inaccurate depiction of Bannockburn in its closing moments is complete Hollywood, in a sense, Wallace may have opened a door for the Scots to see that it was not completely impossible.
Print the legend. Fisher has no choice because there is little else. Normally, this would be a three star, but it is compellingly written, and Fisher avoids unnecessary speculation. Barring a treasure trove of 800 year old documentation being discovered, this is the account for this figure. It covers 1290s-1305 of English Scottish relations very well, and that is the right approach to take. I wasn't disappointed in the read, and so I give Fisher the credit of doing the best job possible. Not his fault that we have no documents - Wallace did lose after all and victors write history. It's a quick and engrossing read, and it covers the territory. Proceed with confidence with open eyes that you will learn nothing about the personality, but more importantly, will understand what he stood for and why statues still stand to his memory. Draw your own conclusions, but everything we know is here. And when Scotland votes to leave Great Britain very soon, know that the obstinate spirit of William Wallace still prevails in Alba.
Here's what we do know for certain: nothing until the battle of Stirling Bridge other than the idea that he was not Scottish nobility, that he was a field general at that occasion in 1297 according to modern parlance, that he did not agree to pledge fealty to King Edward I of England after that date even though the majority of Scottish nobility including the legendary Robert the Bruce did, that he lost at Falkirk when his cavalry failed him, that he was captured due to internal Scottish treachery, and that his trial and execution were exceptionally one sided and cruel even by the standards of the time. What Fisher persuasively and eloquently establishes from the mythology of posthumous hindsight is primarily that William Wallace did not give in to political and personal expediency and gain. He did not accede to English fealty. These can be deduced by the rare vitriol that Edward I reserved personally for him. He gave mercy to nearly all other Scottish rebels except for Wallace. For some reason, Wallace was particularly suitable to be made an example of. He was an outlaw in all senses. He was even so extreme that Scots betrayed him for political expediency. He wasn't even much of a hero in his own day: his death didn't elicit much outrage and he wasn't even a close ally of the ultimate beneficiary, Robert the Bruce. And yet, by the time of the 17th century, Wallace is a Scots exemplar of the freedom fighter as demonstrated by the massive rebellions against monarchy in that time period.
Why? Probably because of his staunch and unflinching, fatal yet admirable refusal to compromise Scottish sovereignty. That he paid the ultimate price over centuries of Scottish futility. That he didn't live to see the triumph of Bannockburn but is seen as a precursor and necessary sacrifice to make that independence possible. Although the film Braveheart completely gets the battlefield details willfully wrong (Stirling Castle, where Mel Gibson gives his impassioned speech for freedom was not fought on flat ground but was rather a rout from high ground and a dismal failure from English eyes with their backs to a river and bridge that was comically inept and a brutal massacre), perhaps it does get the politics right and the futility correct. The most accurate part is probably Wallace's desperate attempt to the get the Scottish nobility unified in the cause of freedom, an impossible task that probably led to this downfall. He was literally one generation ahead of his time, and though the film's fanciful and completely inaccurate depiction of Bannockburn in its closing moments is complete Hollywood, in a sense, Wallace may have opened a door for the Scots to see that it was not completely impossible.
Print the legend. Fisher has no choice because there is little else. Normally, this would be a three star, but it is compellingly written, and Fisher avoids unnecessary speculation. Barring a treasure trove of 800 year old documentation being discovered, this is the account for this figure. It covers 1290s-1305 of English Scottish relations very well, and that is the right approach to take. I wasn't disappointed in the read, and so I give Fisher the credit of doing the best job possible. Not his fault that we have no documents - Wallace did lose after all and victors write history. It's a quick and engrossing read, and it covers the territory. Proceed with confidence with open eyes that you will learn nothing about the personality, but more importantly, will understand what he stood for and why statues still stand to his memory. Draw your own conclusions, but everything we know is here. And when Scotland votes to leave Great Britain very soon, know that the obstinate spirit of William Wallace still prevails in Alba.
March 15, 2023
This was an interesting look into the intersection of myth and history in a folk hero. The author does a good job of piecing together the pieces to create a narrative that makes sense. All the while adding in the myths as they relate and why they are or are not true.
February 13, 2022
A very well researched and written account of William Wallace free of hyperbole.
December 20, 2022
Excellent and thorough "donut" biography, much in the manner of Bettany Hughes's superlative donut biographies of Helen of Troy and Socrates. Where time has eroded contemporary sources, it leaves a hole at the centre of any biographical work, like a donut. The best donut biographies work carefully and clearly within that hole, interrogating and critiquing the second-hand sources we do possess and qualifying when forced into the realm of conjecture. Fine work.
October 16, 2022
Stick with it. It starts a bit rough but gets better. It feels like the author expects you to know a fair bit going in.
June 10, 2023
This was essentially a book about how there’s not enough information to write a book about William Wallace…
A lot of maybes and could have beens, a lot of which were interesting, but very little in terms of information that can be proven. The way it is written is often hard to follow as it jumps between plausibilities and arguments for and against things.
Two stars is a bit harsh, it was mostly enjoyable, just sadly seems to be too little hard evidence to fill a book with.
A lot of maybes and could have beens, a lot of which were interesting, but very little in terms of information that can be proven. The way it is written is often hard to follow as it jumps between plausibilities and arguments for and against things.
Two stars is a bit harsh, it was mostly enjoyable, just sadly seems to be too little hard evidence to fill a book with.
December 14, 2014
This is an outstandingly well researched work on the life of William Wallace. I'd say it is the most comprehensive work I've read on the epic Scottish warrior who changed a nation. I did find it could have used a good editor, but if you are researching William Wallace, this it your go-to book.
April 8, 2019
Well researched but hard to follow without a fairly in-depth understanding of the time period and political situation that Wallace found himself in. Consequently, there are lots of names with no context in the book for who they are or why they (or their title) are important. Same goes for places. If you don’t know the English/Scottish countryside, you will need to consult maps constantly or be lost as to where the action is taking place.
June 21, 2023
Is it possible to make William Wallace boring?
Yes.
While the movie Braveheart is based off of the highly fabricated Blind Harry accounts of Wallace's life, at least it's gory and entertaining.
This, on the other hand, is a complete and total drag, and while I want to spend numerous paragraphs eviscerating it and perseverating on my disappointment, a list will do:
1) We don't have a lot of reliable evidence about Wallace, but let's write a book anyway.
2) Because there isn't a lot about Wallace, let's bog the chapters down with a bunch of blah on which to draw conjecture, and constantly preface this conjecture with "It could be" or "perhaps"
3) There are so many people of the same name during this time period. Let's not provide an easy-to-reference list of all the Roberts and Johns and Edwards and blah blahs and so-ons, and let us not provide a sort of chart that clearly illuminates their allegiances (or betrayals).
4) Let's jam all of these same names in constant accounts of descriptions of background context meant to enlighten, but that will ultimately bore and befuddle.
5) Let's constantly reference battles (particularly Falkirk) with no direct reference to when they occur, that way when we describe the actual battle 10000 pages later, the reader is like "Wait a minute, didn't this already happen?"
6) Let's provide a super basic map...that doesn't even delineate the border of England and Scotland.
7) Let's make the two monumental battles that define Wallace as uninteresting and undramatic as absolutely possible because we can bog them down with superfluous detail.
8) Let's organize the book into dramatic sections and dates, and then not stick to those dates, making the organization feel somehow totally disorganized.
9) Let's make a good amount of this book about Edward and those around William Wallace because, you know, there's not much we have about Wallace. So, like 15% of this will be about Wallace, and we can name this book William Wallace instead of something like Scottish Battles for Independence. I don't know. I'm spitballing here. This felt like it could have been a 30 page biography on Wallace.
10) Let's make the death of William Wallace the most compelling, horrifying, and interesting part of the biography, and then completely lose the plot by adding a 20+ page conclusion that really doesn't add anything valuable.
I hated this. And I was so excited for it.
Yes.
While the movie Braveheart is based off of the highly fabricated Blind Harry accounts of Wallace's life, at least it's gory and entertaining.
This, on the other hand, is a complete and total drag, and while I want to spend numerous paragraphs eviscerating it and perseverating on my disappointment, a list will do:
1) We don't have a lot of reliable evidence about Wallace, but let's write a book anyway.
2) Because there isn't a lot about Wallace, let's bog the chapters down with a bunch of blah on which to draw conjecture, and constantly preface this conjecture with "It could be" or "perhaps"
3) There are so many people of the same name during this time period. Let's not provide an easy-to-reference list of all the Roberts and Johns and Edwards and blah blahs and so-ons, and let us not provide a sort of chart that clearly illuminates their allegiances (or betrayals).
4) Let's jam all of these same names in constant accounts of descriptions of background context meant to enlighten, but that will ultimately bore and befuddle.
5) Let's constantly reference battles (particularly Falkirk) with no direct reference to when they occur, that way when we describe the actual battle 10000 pages later, the reader is like "Wait a minute, didn't this already happen?"
6) Let's provide a super basic map...that doesn't even delineate the border of England and Scotland.
7) Let's make the two monumental battles that define Wallace as uninteresting and undramatic as absolutely possible because we can bog them down with superfluous detail.
8) Let's organize the book into dramatic sections and dates, and then not stick to those dates, making the organization feel somehow totally disorganized.
9) Let's make a good amount of this book about Edward and those around William Wallace because, you know, there's not much we have about Wallace. So, like 15% of this will be about Wallace, and we can name this book William Wallace instead of something like Scottish Battles for Independence. I don't know. I'm spitballing here. This felt like it could have been a 30 page biography on Wallace.
10) Let's make the death of William Wallace the most compelling, horrifying, and interesting part of the biography, and then completely lose the plot by adding a 20+ page conclusion that really doesn't add anything valuable.
I hated this. And I was so excited for it.
June 2, 2025
The author's conclusion states, "The tragedy of Wallace ... is the inability of generations past and present to recognise that the essence of the man lies in his words and deeds. With Wallace, the words are the man, the deeds his assurance of immortality. The real Wallace is the Wallace of history." [p. 280]
If this is so, the one aspect of the tragedy of Wallace is that he left almost nothing in the way of verifiable words, and his verifiable deeds -- lacking the documented acclaim of vox populi -- rise nowhere near the level required of "immortality." One feels for the plight historians limited to those crumbs of fact, unless they're resigned to a journal article of eleven pages. If proof is needed, look no further than this book: its historical account is replete with a continuous barrage of ifs, mights, and maybes; in its search for comparative context about principal characters, it casts a net of considerable breadth backwards into the eleventh century and forward into the sixteenth; its explanations trot out the dynastic miseries of Plantagenet feudalism that completely fail to limn the phenomenon of Wallace.
Certainly it situates something called "Wallace" within a time-frame of less than a decade. As such its narrative is not without value. Regrettably, however, the result is something of an empty line-drawing. Perhaps this is better than the lurid cartoon that is Braveheart, but the failure to find any groundswell to explain the subsequent legend is felt as a sad lack indeed. One suspects it is a weakness of history from the top down: it can't explain Wallace in the same way it can't explain Robin Hood. Wallace derives from a vanished byway where events triggered the popular imagination; finding no reliable chronicler, the phenomenon fizzled into oral traditions by their very nature inadmissible to libraries. That is the tragedy of Wallace.
If this is so, the one aspect of the tragedy of Wallace is that he left almost nothing in the way of verifiable words, and his verifiable deeds -- lacking the documented acclaim of vox populi -- rise nowhere near the level required of "immortality." One feels for the plight historians limited to those crumbs of fact, unless they're resigned to a journal article of eleven pages. If proof is needed, look no further than this book: its historical account is replete with a continuous barrage of ifs, mights, and maybes; in its search for comparative context about principal characters, it casts a net of considerable breadth backwards into the eleventh century and forward into the sixteenth; its explanations trot out the dynastic miseries of Plantagenet feudalism that completely fail to limn the phenomenon of Wallace.
Certainly it situates something called "Wallace" within a time-frame of less than a decade. As such its narrative is not without value. Regrettably, however, the result is something of an empty line-drawing. Perhaps this is better than the lurid cartoon that is Braveheart, but the failure to find any groundswell to explain the subsequent legend is felt as a sad lack indeed. One suspects it is a weakness of history from the top down: it can't explain Wallace in the same way it can't explain Robin Hood. Wallace derives from a vanished byway where events triggered the popular imagination; finding no reliable chronicler, the phenomenon fizzled into oral traditions by their very nature inadmissible to libraries. That is the tragedy of Wallace.
July 12, 2021
Very well written and structured. An unbiased analytical account of the historical figure. Excellent analysis and cross referencing of sources on both sides of the fence (Scots/English) as well as interesting conclusions about how he was thought on at the time of his trial and execution (an inconsequential figure who had become an embarrassment to the nobles of Scotland).
Other interesting elements were his relationship, of lack thereof, with Robert the Bruce, Andrew Murray (how responsible was he for Stirling Bridge), how close he came to avoiding the battle of Falkirk and Edward I having to return home, resignation of the Guardianship of Scotland, and his unaccounted period in Norway, France, Vatican.
Fascinating exploration all round that whets the appetite for further reading on the period.
Other interesting elements were his relationship, of lack thereof, with Robert the Bruce, Andrew Murray (how responsible was he for Stirling Bridge), how close he came to avoiding the battle of Falkirk and Edward I having to return home, resignation of the Guardianship of Scotland, and his unaccounted period in Norway, France, Vatican.
Fascinating exploration all round that whets the appetite for further reading on the period.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 8, 2025
The pacing was a little all over the place at times but for the most part this was a fascinating account of William Wallace's life, career and death. I feel I've got to see the Scottish hero from a new perspective, and seen how he stood alone and steadfast in mission against the fickleness of Bruce and Comyn, and of course the looming Edward I. I think this cleared up a few things I didn't understand about Scotland at the time and I feel like I've got a good look at Scottish history too. After my recent trip to Scotland I'm very much on the Scottish medieval bandwagon and I feel like their titular hero was a good place to start. Wallace will live long in my mind for his values and commitment to his cause.
August 20, 2018
Andrew Fisher gives us a well-researched biography of the celebrated Scot despite the gaps in the famous hero's history - resulting in a lot of speculation. William Wallace is revealed to us in a somewhat less romantic account than that of Hollywood's Braveheart: if still depicted as an incredible tactitian and a man devoted to his country's independence, he also appears crueller and more violent. Yet this less perfect - and more human - portrait in no way lessens his deeds. If nothing else, Wallace remains the fascinating figure whose actions have undisputably left their mark in History.
October 25, 2025
Wallace
I was not expecting a retelling of the movie Braveheart. This was the real William Wallace from birth to his death. The problem for Modern historians is to find the truth of who he was. The English historians in the time of Wallace exaggerated his crimes. The Scottish historians exaggerated his heroism. When the author of this book, Fisher, could not find any records about Wallace's actions, he just said, we don't know, rather than making up something based on assumptions. I enjoyed the book.
I was not expecting a retelling of the movie Braveheart. This was the real William Wallace from birth to his death. The problem for Modern historians is to find the truth of who he was. The English historians in the time of Wallace exaggerated his crimes. The Scottish historians exaggerated his heroism. When the author of this book, Fisher, could not find any records about Wallace's actions, he just said, we don't know, rather than making up something based on assumptions. I enjoyed the book.
August 5, 2021
This book is very political so if you’re into that, this is for you. I saw the movie as a kid and I was immediately captivated. The book is completely different and because the information is so sketchy, it can cause a lot of frustration. Well written, but the story just leaves a glass half full feeling.
January 22, 2024
Very well researched. Makes for dry reading. I don't know that I can agree with all of the conclusions made by Fisher either. To completely dismiss a potential link with Wallace's execution and Robert the Bruce reigniting the Scottish revolt with the murder of John Comyn like 6 months later is a bit brash in my opinion. But that's me.
September 5, 2024
Not good for your first book on Wallace. Instead of being a history of William Wallace, this is more a discussion for people already familiar with the events of Williams life. Not told in chronological order, early chapters constantly spoil events later in the story.
November 19, 2025
This is a very academic and a bit dry look at the life of William Wallace, the one that began the liberation of Scotland from England. I appreciate the author's willingness to talk through what information we have and understanding we don't have all the answers to his life.
July 17, 2017
I only skimmed the book. A lot of speculations. I just seem to not appreciate second hand accounts lol! The life of William Wallace seems cool and superfluous at times.
September 7, 2019
Extremely readable and well researched scholarly book. The author expects you to know the legend or have at least seen Braveheart.
Read
November 18, 2020Its a story of William wallaces life how he rose to fame and how he was executed.
November 11, 2023
Mountain of people to remember and total fan boy version of Wallace along with a passive aggressive position on Bruce. Decent but nothing revelatory in the detail.
Read
October 17, 2025“We can visualize the increasing desperation with which Wallace fought on, perhaps even in desperation seeking a clean, swift death sword in hand. That he was not to have.”, p. 225
January 11, 2026
Interesting subject matter. Well researched just a little dry. Would have liked a better narrative.
September 9, 2012
An interesting book about one of the world's great heroes. Although it is not a problem of the book, there are very few facts known about his life. This necessitates a lot of speculation. However, I think the information could have been presented more in a more clear and lively manner.
November 25, 2013
This is the best biography of William Wallace that is currently available. The author is often forced to speculate about Wallace's actions and motives - inevitably so, due to the nature of the sources and gaps in the record - but this is a well-researched and insightful book.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews