The Justice Department said Tuesday that it has sued Oregon and Maine for failing to turn over their voter registration lists, marking the first lawsuits the department has brought against states in its wide-ranging effort to get detailed voter data. The department said the states were violating federal law by refusing to provide electronic copies of state voter registration lists and information regarding ineligible voters. It added that Oregon also did not provide...

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has been permanently sidelined from prosecuting President Donald Trump’s election interference case in Georgia after she lost an appeal at the state’s highest court.  The Georgia Court of Appeals in December ruled that Willis and her office could not continue to prosecute the case, citing an "appearance of impropriety" stemming from her romantic relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade.

from The National Pulse: WHAT HAPPENED: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) detained several international food shipping containers containing cesium-137 contamination. ?WHO WAS INVOLVED: CBP officers, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and PT. Bahari Makmur Sejati of Indonesia. ?WHEN & WHERE: The discoveries occurred at major U.S. ports including Los Angeles, Long Beach, Houston, Savannah, Norfolk, Elizabeth, and Miami. ?KEY QUOTE: “CBP and […]

  The start of the Viking Age is usually dated to the end of the 8th century when the Vikings attacked Lindisfarne and began raiding the British Isles. However, new archaeological evidence suggests that the start of the Viking Age should probably be pushed back 50-100 years. Viking boats discovered at Salme on the island of Saaremaa in Estonia suggest that the Vikings were actively raiding and settling the Baltics from the late 7th century.   Redefining Viking History in the Baltics Archaeological remains of the larger of the Salme Viking ships. Source: University of Tallinn   Our understanding of Viking history in the Baltics expanded significantly in the early 21st century when, in 2008, archaeologists discovered the remains of a ship at Salme on the island of Saaremaa. While they initially thought they had found a relic from World War II, it was later revealed as a Viking ship. Two years later, a second, larger ship was discovered just 100 feet away. Archaeologists believe there may be one more yet undiscovered ship in the vicinity.   The first ship was 11.5 meters (37.7 feet) long and two meters (6.5 feet) wide and contained the remains of six bodies. The second ship was 17 meters (55 feet) long and three meters (10 feet) wide and contained the remains of 33 bodies. The ships themselves were completely rotted. They were reconstructed from discoloration caused by the wood, plus 275 surviving iron rivets for the first ship, and more than 1,200 surviving nails and rivets for the second ship.   Archaeological remains and DNA analysis suggest that all 39 bodies were male and that they and the ships came from Sweden. Radiocarbon dating places ship construction sometime between 650-700 CE. Signs of repair, patching, and continuous use suggest that they may have been on the water for 50 years, finding their final resting place between 700-750 CE.   The remains also suggest that the ships used sails, pushing back the date for this technology, both among the Vikings and in the Baltic region. This would explain how these ships could navigate the 100 miles of open water between Sweden and Estonia. This find also suggests that the Vikings were using their superior ship technology to dominate their neighbors 50-100 years before they started raiding the British Isles. So, what was happening in Sweden at this time that would explain this early Viking activity in the Baltic?   The Ynglinga Saga: Mythical Kings of Sweden Title page for the Ynglinga Saga, by Gerhard Munthe, 1896. Source: Wikimedia Commons   The Christian Icelandic author Snorri Sturluson wrote his Ynglinga Saga in the 12th century CE. It is believed to be based on a 9th-century Skaldic poem called Ynglingatal, which Sturluson quotes frequently. The saga claims to tell the history of the earliest Swedish kings, but until recently, it was mostly thought to contain legend and myth.   The work starts by retelling the story of the divine Aesir-Vanir War, with Odin and the other gods transformed into ancient rulers of a great land. Odin hears of the fertile lands in Scandinavia and leaves his capital, Asgard in Asaland, to create a new settlement in what would become known as Sweden, introducing the laws and customs of Asaland.   Illustration of Odin from an edition of the Ynglinga Saga, by Erik Werenskiold, 1899. Source: University of Victoria   Odin was succeeded by Njord, a Vanir who went to live among the Aesir after the conclusion of the Aesir-Vanir War. After many years of prosperity, during which all the ancient ones died, bringing their age to an end, Njord also died and was succeeded by his son, Freyr. Also known as Yngvi, Freyr established Uppsala as the capital of his kingdom and started the Ynglinger Dynasty.   There follows a list of around 30 kings with unbelievably long reigns and incredulously heroic stories, including Ragnar Lodbrok and Bjorn Ironside. While both these figures probably existed, their place in the Ynglinga Saga’s list seems historically inaccurate, making them more legendary than historical in this context. Scholars have always assumed that the same was true for the other kings on the list until the reign of Erik the Victorious, a 10th-century ruler known to be historical.   King Ingvar Harra of Sweden Illustration of Ingvar from an edition of the Ynglinga Saga, by Gerhard Munthe, 1899. Source: Wikimedia Commons   One of the early kings on the list is Ingvar Harra, who reportedly reigned several generations before Ragnar Lodbrok, probably near the start of the 8th century CE. According to the saga, he spent much of his time patrolling the shores of Sweden to protect them against Danish Vikings and Estonian pirates from the Baltic. He eventually made a treaty with the Danes to focus his resources on dealing with the Estonian threat.   One summer, he sailed to Estonia, to either attack or negotiate with the Estonians. When he arrived, they had assembled a great army to meet him. In the ensuing battle, Ingvar was killed, and his men were forced to retreat. According to the saga, Ingvar was buried in Estonia on the shores of Adalsysla in mainland Estonia.   But Snorri Sturluson also quotes a 9th-century poem about the death of Ingvar in Estonia that says that he was buried on an island in the heart of the Baltic where the sea sings songs of the sea giant Gymir to delight the Swedish ruler. The Historia Norwegiae, a history written in Latin by an anonymous monk in the 13th century, also says that Ingvar was buried on an island in the Baltic called Eysysla, an Old Norse name for the island of Saaremaa. Can the ships found on Saaremaa be linked back to Ingvar and his story?   Viking Warriors in Estonia Weapons found on the Salme ships, Estonia, c. 8th century. Source: Saaremaa Museum   The 39 men found on the two ships at Salme have been identified as Viking warriors. Examination suggests that they were all men between 18 and 45 years old. Many showed signs of healed wounds, suggesting they were veterans of several battles. They also appear to have been a tough and imposing group. The average height of the men was five feet and ten inches, and a few of the bodies were over six feet tall. They would have towered over the 8th-century English, who were only around five feet and five inches tall on average.   DNA analysis also suggests that four of the men were brothers and had a close familial relation to another man on the boat, perhaps an uncle. It seems raiding was a family affair.   But while this may have been an impressive band of veteran warriors, their raid was unsuccessful, as these ships became their graves. It is worth noting that these ships predate the first known Viking ship burial from Scandinavia by around 100 years.   Burial arrangement in the larger ship. Source: Estonian Journal of Archaeology   The largest of the two ships is a mass grave. The bodies of 33 warriors were neatly lined up in four layers and covered with a dome of shields, which acted as a shroud. The men were buried with grave goods, which may have been on their person when they died, but also seems to represent selection. They were buried with their weapons and personal items such as combs, but also gaming pieces. More than 100 gaming pieces were found among the bodies.   The bodies also seem to have been arranged according to a hierarchy, with the highest ranking on top as they have the best quality weapons and armor. At the very top was a man with the finest blade on the ship, which had a jeweled hilt. He also had a walrus ivory game piece, a king, placed in his mouth. This may have been meant to mark him out as the group’s leader.   The six bodies on the smaller ship tell a very different story. Rather than being organized and laid to rest with care, they were found seated individually or in pairs, slumped over, as if they just died wherever they sat. So, what happened to this party of warriors?   Ingvar and His Men? Gilded bronze sword pommel decorated with an image of a human-faced beast and 25 almandines, Salme, c. 8th century. Source: University of Cambridge   These two ships clearly carried warriors from Sweden to Estonia, perhaps as part of a larger fleet. They were involved in a battle, as evidenced by numerous arrowheads found embedded in the ships, including three-pointed types used to set ships alight. At some point, they seem to have pulled the ships ashore on the island of Saaremaa, probably to form a defensive perimeter and make a last stand. Wounds identified on some of the bodies suggest that they died in hand-to-hand combat.   When the battle was over, there were 33 dead and six survivors. The survivors arranged for the burial of their comrades, and clearly considered a boat an appropriate resting place, rather than taking them out and burying them on land. This pushes back the date for Viking ship burials by about a century.   The survivors probably believed that their brave brothers had earned themselves a place in Valhalla, the afterlife for brave warriors who die in battle and that their ship would carry them into the afterlife. The survivors were not so lucky. As they waited to die of starvation and exposure, they knew that they would not be chosen for Valhalla. Over time, both ships were covered by sand and vegetation and forgotten only to be rediscovered more than 1,000 years later.   Could these ships have belonged to King Ingvar Harr and his men? Is the man on the top of the burial pile with the king gaming piece in his mouth Ingvar? Is this the island where legend says that the Swedish king was laid to rest in Estonia? There is insufficient surviving evidence to confirm any of these speculations, but the timeline fits. But even if this is not Ingvar and his men, these ships demonstrate that the Vikings were active in the Baltic at least 50-100 years before they started raiding the British Isles.   The Vikings in the Baltic Map of Viking trade routes and the distribution of Arab dirhams along these trade routes. Source: Research in Estonia   While the Salme ships point to the start of Viking activity in the Baltic, it is only the beginning of a long story. From the 8th century, it is possible to see significant Viking influence in the Baltic, with Viking culture influencing local jewelry, weapons, ships, and settlements. Often, archaeological finds in Estonia are identified as imports from the Viking world, but they were equally likely to have been made locally in response to Viking cultural influence.   Viking activity in the Baltic was driven by Austrvegr, which means the “eastern way,” with the Baltic Sea becoming a key trading route. The Swedish Vikings traveled to Novgorod and Kyiv in the Russia-Ukraine region, kingdoms reportedly founded by Swedish Vikings, Constantinople in the Byzantine Empire where Swedes often served in the Varangian Guard, and even Baghdad in the Arab world. Many Arab dirham coins made their way back to Sweden.   250 silver coins from the Sigsarve hoard, which contained 1,391 coins, including coins from England, Germany, and the Arab world, Gotland, c. 1120 CE. Source: Historika Museet, Sweden   By the 10th century, Estonia seems to have become part of the Viking world. Many stories mention Viking activity in the region. For example, in the story of the Norwegian king Olaf Tryggvason, in the late 10th century he was kidnapped and enslaved by Vikings from Estonia, until he was spotted at an Estonian slave market, freed, and taken to Novgorod. Njals Saga reports a battle between Estonians and Icelandic Vikings off the coast of Saaremaa in the Baltic in 972 CE.

  William Wallace is one of the most legendary heroes of Scottish history. Wallace is known to all as Braveheart, the freedom fighter who defied the English tyrant Edward I and died horrifically for his country’s freedom. Yet so much of Wallace’s life has been obscured by myth and popular reimagining. Equally, these myths have obscured the military strategies and innovations employed by Wallace and those who came after him to eventually free Scotland from English tyranny.   The Mystery of William Wallace The Wallace Sword at the Wallace Monument in Stirling. Though claimed to be Wallace’s own sword, much of the weapon was made a century after his death, except part of the blade. Source: Wikimedia Commons   In Scotland’s darkest hour, William Wallace appeared like an avenging angel to save her from the English, a man of the people who was murdered by the tyrant Edward I but inspired his countrymen to reclaim their freedom. Naturally, Wallace’s actual life is not so simple, nor in fairness are most of the legends told of him. However, Wallace’s origins and actual life story have become so obscured, and so many stories and legends have been written about him, that the folklore has become engrained into his story.   This is no better shown than in the notorious 1995 film Braveheart, famous for sacrificing historical authenticity for romanticized fiction. Yet even one of the earliest sources about Wallace, a 15th-century poem named The Acts and Deeds of Sir William Wallace, Knight of Elderslie, suffered from this obfuscation of history. Its author, a monk known as “Blind Harry,” heavily glamorized Wallace’s story, inventing characters in his life and occasionally attributing the deeds of others to Wallace.   Separating the folklore from William Wallace to learn the true story of the man is a fascinating venture. Yet equally fascinating is understanding exactly how Wallace succeeded against formidable odds and equally how he met his eventual demise. The legends often depict Wallace as a superhero who won battles through his sheer might alone, often overlooking the strategies Wallace and his other freedom fighters used. The military campaigns of Wallace, their origins, strengths, weaknesses, and eventual success, deserve greater recognition.   How was it that Wallace was able to defeat the English who had swept aside all previous opposition? How was he able to unite the Scottish against the English and use their strengths to succeed? How did the English respond, and finally, to what extent did Wallace’s actions truly save his country?   Origin and Uprising Wallace’s seal was attached to a letter written to the city of Lubek in the Holy Roman Empire. The seal depicts a drawn bow and arrow surrounded by the caption “William, son of Alan Wallace.” Source: Scottish Archives for Schools   William Wallace was born around 1270 into a minor noble family but not a great Scottish aristocratic house. Interestingly, the surname Wallace suggests his family may have originally been from Wales or the ancient Brittonic kingdom of Strathclyde. His seal suggests some military connection before his uprising, possibly as a mercenary in Wales in 1294-95. It has also been suggested that he might have been about to join the church or possibly been in trouble with the law. Whatever his origin, Wallace’s life changed completely in 1296.   In 1292, after the last king of Scotland died heirless, the governing regents, known as the Guardians of Scotland, invited Edward I of England to help decide the next king. Edward chose a man named John Balliol but also declared himself Balliol’s overlord and began intervening in Scottish affairs. John and his supporters became sick of Edward’s meddling and declared war in 1296.   Edward, supported by Scottish nobles opposed to John, invaded and crushed John’s resistance. However, Edward then forced English law, garrisons, and officials onto Scotland, alienating his noble allies and angering the common people. Soon, uprisings blazed across Scotland against the greed and corruption of the occupying English.   John Balliol and his wife, 16th century. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Wallace was not the first rebel, but he would become the most famous. In May 1297, in Lanark, a confrontation occurred between Wallace and the local English sheriff, William Heselrig. Later the same day, Wallace gathered a party of supporters and ambushed and slaughtered the English garrison.   Wallace, quickly levying armed support, suggests he was already an influential figure and may, as blind Harry suggests, have already been causing the English trouble. Either way, Wallace was now a bona fide rebel leader, attacking the English alongside other rebels, most notably Lord William of Douglas. Wallace soon saw great success, thanks in part to his style of combat.   Most battles at the time were decided by the heavily armed, mounted warriors of the nobility. The non-aristocratic folk of Scotland, however, were expert light infantry and horsemen thanks to centuries of clan feuds, cattle raids, and other skirmishes. Travelling light and easy over difficult terrain, they would suddenly strike their enemies before vanishing back into their hills and forests. Wallace turned these men into guerilla warriors, waging a brutal but brilliant campaign of asymmetric hit-and-run warfare against the English occupiers.   The Battle of Stirling Bridge Statue of Wallace outside the Scottish National Portrait Gallery. Source: Geograph   Over the summer of 1297, Wallace wrought havoc on the English in central Scotland, while another rebel leader, Andrew of Moray, led a similar uprising in the North and Highlands. They were not alone, though, as soon members of the Scottish aristocracy, previously forced to pledge homage to Edward after his invasion, renounced their homage and joined the rebellion. In fact, Blind Harry and other sources attributed certain events to Wallace that later evidence suggests were undertaken by other rebels. The Scottish nobles, however, were plagued by internal rivalries and lacked coherent leadership.   When the English governors of Scotland marched an army to quell the uprisings in June, most of the nobles, including Lord Douglas, capitulated. Undeterred, Wallace and Moray continued their guerilla campaigns against the English and their noble puppets. Soon, the two rebel leaders decided to join forces and meet the English army, now bolstered by the levies of the Scottish nobles, near Stirling on the River Forth.   The English had every right to feel confident as they began crossing the bridge at Stirling to confront the rebels on September 11, 1297. They outnumbered the rebels, and their knights and famous longbowmen had overcome all Scottish opposition in open battle. Yet Wallace and Moray, waiting unseen on the other side of the river, had a plan. When around half the English had crossed the bridge, the rebels fell upon them, trapping the English in a bottleneck and blocking off reinforcements coming over the bridge.   Stirling Bridge. Source: Wikimedia Commons   The English knights and archers were unable to fight effectively as the rebels advanced, likely in the new Schiltron formation: a dense phalanx of spears that pinned the English onto the banks of the River Forth. Meanwhile, the Scottish nobles turned their coats once again and attacked the English baggage train and reserves. The English were slaughtered, drowned, or fled. The most gruesome fate befell the English treasurer of Scotland, Hugh De Cressingham, who, many sources record, was flayed alive in revenge for his corrupt exploitation of Scotland, with his skin becoming Wallace’s sword belt.   Gruesome leatherworking aside, the Battle of Stirling was a tactical masterstroke that changed the course of the war. Wallace and Moray had defeated a full English army in open battle for the first time: Scotland could take on their occupiers and win. Wallace then pursued the retreating English over the border, plundering England as far south as Newcastle and returning with their loot to rebuild Scotland’s administration. In the absence of the still exiled John Balliol, new Guardians of Scotland had to be appointed—and who better to choose than the victors of Stirling Bridge?   Guardian of Scotland and Falkirk The Wallace Monument, a tower built in the 19th century on a hill overlooking Stirling celebrating Wallace’s life and victories. Source: Geograph   In December 1297, at the romantically named Kirk o’ the Forrest in Selkirk, Wallace was knighted and made Guardian of Scotland alongside Andrew Moray. Tragically, Andrew succumbed to injuries he sustained at Stirling in November, but Wallace continued as sole Guardian, setting up Scottish governance and pursuing international trade treaties.   In barely six months, Wallace went from a nobody to a legendary freedom fighter and one of the most powerful men in Scotland—but there was good reason for this sudden elevation. Alongside his military success, Wallace’s relatively common birth meant he was involved in none of the internal rivalries of the great noble houses, making him the ideal figurehead for Scottish independence. Likewise, his lack of nobility endeared him to the common people as he was unsullied by the disastrous campaigns of John Balliol and had never pledged homage to King Edward I.   Speaking of whom, Edward, away in France during the debacle at Stirling, had returned to Scotland in April 1298 with a massive army and a thirst for payback. Wallace wisely decided against facing Edward’s wrath head-on as the English king stormed northwards. Instead, he baited Edward into pursuing him while scorching the earth before the English and making them exhaust their supplies. However, just as it seemed that Edward would be forced to retreat or starve, he managed to locate Wallace and force him into a pitched battle near Falkirk on July 22.   The charge of Antony Bek, Bishop of Durham, at the Battle of Falkirk, 1873. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Wallace tried to make the best of a bad situation, deploying his men in Schiltrons on good defensive ground, supported by archers and Scottish noble knights to withstand the charge of the English heavy cavalry. Unfortunately, though they fought hard (contrary to Mel Gibson’s allegations), the numerically inferior Scottish knights were eventually overwhelmed and routed alongside the archers by the English cavalry. Yet, Wallace and his Schiltrons stood their ground and broke the English charge, paying bloody vengeance back on the English horsemen.   However, in response, Edward calmly recalled his cavalry before bringing up his infantry and Welsh longbowmen to deliver the killer blow. Without the Scottish cavalry and archers to support them, the Schiltrons were forced to stand their ground as the English rained arrows and missiles down upon them. The lightly armored Scots died where they stood or fled.   Lost Years and International Efforts A letter from King Philippe of France instructing his agents in Rome to assist “William Wallace of Scotland” in meeting with the Pope, whether this meeting took place or not is uncertain. Source: National Records of Scotland   Historians often blame Wallace for not charging forward with his Schiltrons (as at Stirling Bridge), thus allowing Edward to dictate the battle on his terms. Yet, Wallace was caught in an unenviable dilemma—charging without archers or cavalry to cover him would only have invited Edward to surround the Schiltrons and destroy them.   The truth was, Wallace lacked the arms and numbers to give battle, but he nearly succeeded in avoiding it altogether. Edward, one of the greatest generals of the Medieval Era, had only forced Wallace out of his denial and scorched earth strategy through some good luck. It is no slander on Wallace to say he had come for the king but just barely missed.   Wallace escaped with his reputation, wholly reliant on military success, in tatters, and resigned from the Guardianship, but his story would not end at Falkirk. Edward’s army was too low on supplies to completely subjugate Scotland, so after consolidating his gains, the king returned to England. In the meantime, new Guardians of Scotland were appointed, and Wallace left Scotland to gain diplomatic support.   Edward I, Burgh by Sands. Source: Geograph   Wallace’s precise movements between 1299 and 1303 are somewhat uncertain, but he likely traveled to European courts like Norway to gain support for Scotland’s cause. His best documented and successful venture was in the court of France, where he helped persuade King Philippe IV to threaten Edward out of another outright invasion of Scotland. Philippe even sought to help Wallace gain an audience with the Pope, but it is unknown if the audience ever actually took place.   Records of these international ventures are the clearest indicators of Wallace’s activities as the century turned. However, there are also folktales that tell of Wallace’s adventures across Scotland, fighting English soldiers and righting wrongs, often coupled with local sites that have become famous attractions. Historically, it is only known for certain that Wallace was back from his international ventures around 1302-1303, once again taking up arms against Edward. For, despite Wallace’s best efforts, Edward had managed to negotiate a truce with France and brought the full force of his might against Scotland again.   Capture and Execution Dumbarton Castle, where Wallace was interred after his capture before being taken to London, photo taken by the author   The Scottish loyalists fought desperately but were too few to prevent Edward’s methodical conquest. By 1304, Scotland’s main defenders had accepted Edward’s surprisingly fair terms of surrender. Edward, however, did not offer any terms to Wallace, not that he would have accepted any offer in any case.   It is uncertain whether at this stage Wallace still led a group of supporters or was alone. Either way, he was an outlaw on the run, hunted down by former allies on the orders of a foreign king looking to make an example out of him. His last confirmed military action was a skirmish at Earnside in September 1304, after which his actions are unclear.   For almost a year, there were more folktales of his adventures. His devotion to Scottish freedom remained unchanged, but logically, he could do little for his country on his own. He may have been planning another uprising or possibly looking to head abroad and join Scottish loyalists in exile. Whatever his plan, it came to nothing when, in August 1305, he was betrayed to the English by Sir John Menteith, thereafter known as “the False Menteith” for his treachery.   Wallace was interred at Dumbarton Castle before being taken to face Edward in a trial at Westminster. The charges against Wallace were treason and, intriguingly, committing “atrocities against civilians,” a relative first in medieval legal history. In feudal law, Wallace could not commit treason against a king he had never pledged fealty to, such as Edward, who was also not one to talk about atrocities against civilians in any case.   The Trial of William Wallace, by Daniel Maclise, 1909. Source: Picryl   Of course, this was never meant to be a fair trial. Edward wanted to put the upstart Wallace in his place to demonstrate his total subjugation of Scotland. Edward depicted Wallace not as a genuine combatant, fighting and protected by the rights and customs of medieval warfare, but as an outlaw who betrayed the king’s peace and murdered innocents.   For his part, Wallace made a powerful rebuttal recorded in a 19th century book from earlier lost sources: “To Edward, King of England, I cannot be a traitor. I owe him no allegiance; as he is not my sovereign; he never received my homage, and, whilst life is in this persecuted body, he never shall receive it.”   Edward felt no qualms about this response or removing life from Wallace’s body, and the kangaroo court concluded with an inevitable guilty verdict. On August 23, 1305, William Wallace was executed in Smithfield in London by being hung, drawn, and quartered—a brutal method reserved only for traitors and the worst of criminals. He was hung from a gibbet, disemboweled while still alive, then butchered into quarters, and his head was stuck upon a spike on London Bridge.   Aftermath and the Fight for Independence A memorial to William Wallace at the site of his execution in Smithfield, London. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Edward intended for William Wallace to only be remembered as a warning for anyone who dared challenge his authority, but this, of course, failed. He died a heroic martyr for the cause of Scottish freedom and inspired his cowed countrymen to once again take up arms and expel the hated English. So the romanticized retelling goes.   Certainly, Wallace’s death was a shocking warning to his compatriots that Edward now saw Scotland as his own fief and they his subjects. Certainly, another great uprising would blaze up just a year later, led by Robert the Bruce, that eventually freed Scotland. Yet, it is uncertain how great a catalyst for this uprising Wallace’s death was. Other factors, including a murder in a church, pushed Robert to rebel. Blind Harry certainly attempted to insert Wallace into Robert’s story as an inspiring mentor who first suggested he should take the throne, but this seems to be poetic license rather than fact.   Robert the Bruce at Stirling Castle. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Likewise, it is narratively fitting to place Wallace’s success at the end of his story, seeing his martyrdom as the inspirational catalyst for others to finish what he started and free Scotland. Yet, history is an unconventional story writer. Wallace’s contribution to Scotland’s eventual freedom came not at the end but throughout his life.   He was a successful rebel who unified the divided nobility and inspired the common people. He and Moray maintained the momentum of the uprising and developed it into an actual chance at independence. Wallace also demonstrated the best strategies for the conflict and what (and sadly also what not) to do against the English in battle.   This is not to say that Wallace taught Robert everything he needed to win Scotland’s freedom, but there is no doubt that the Bruce built upon Wallace’s foundations. He made himself a unifying figurehead (with a bit more violence against his countrymen than Wallace) and used guerrilla warfare and scorched earth tactics as needed. When he gave battle against England, he used his Schiltrons effectively, notably at Bannockburn in 1314, where, just like Wallace at Stirling, he surprised the English with a Schiltron charge and trapped them against a river. In other words, it was through his life, not death, that Wallace inspired great deeds in others.   Man and Story Build a Nation Statue of Wallace in Aberdeen, a somewhat more romantically stylized depiction of Wallace than other statues. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Part of what makes William Wallace such a compelling figure is how dramatically and swiftly he rose and fell. The period from Lanark to Falkirk took barely over a year, and the height of his glory as Guardian of Scotland ended almost as suddenly as it began. His origins and much of his campaign against England are shrouded in rumor, speculation, and even folklore. Yet, in his brief time in the limelight, he made an enormously powerful impact on the course of the war and on Scottish history.   These two factors make Wallace the perfect canvas for folklore and romanticized history. A legend shrouded in mystery but who made a glorious, but no less real, impact in a fight for his nation’s survival. The framework of history can then be covered in folklore and poetic interpretation to fill in the gaps in his life and deeds.   Bust of Blind Harry, by Alexander Stoddart. Source: Wikimedia Commons   We have seen how the real Wallace fought for Scotland and inspired others to do so, yet the storified Wallace also served his country by building the Scottish national story. Blind Harry’s poem was the first work dedicated solely to Wallace. Though published over a century and a half after Wallace’s death, it triggered a renewed interest in the man and his legends throughout Scottish society. Other legends were published, and important families and even royalty took an interest in him and promoted him as a legendary national hero.   Through the centuries, as Scottish national identity developed and struggled in the face of the union with England and the suppression of the Jacobites and Highlands, Wallace was a figure of Scottish freedom from a long-ago past. The likes of Walter Scott and Robert Burns celebrated his legendary heroics in their literature. In many ways then, one could say the myths and legends of William Wallace, the stories retold of the man, helped shape Scotland over the coming centuries just as the man himself had shaped Scotland to fight against Edward’s conquest.

Despite being released from the hospital, 'American Pickers' star Mike Wolfe refuses to leave Leticia Cline’s bedside after their terrifying car crash. Continue reading…

The alt-metal band will play a second show at London’s Tottenham Hotspur Stadium on July 15

Your church announces two concurrent adult education classes. The description for the first: “Join us in Room A to explore how conquering the flesh helps us walk by the Spirit.” The description for the second: “Join us in Room B to explore how rediscovering a lost 14th-century practice can unlock deeper spirituality.” Which class will be better attended? In many churches, the draw to Room B would be mesmeric—and not just among Gen Z. At my church, the 50-to-70 crowd might be the best-represented demographic in Room B, having caught a particular version of the spiritual formation bug from authors their (adult) kids have recommended. But the apostle Paul seems more concerned about warning against “walking by the flesh” than he is about instructing in spiritual techniques (Gal. 5:16–24; Rom. 8:1–13). Should we be concerned, then, that so many of us (myself included!) would be more intrigued by a technique-oriented spiritual formation class than by a sin-killing spiritual formation class? How We Got Here The well-known leaders of the last generation’s spiritual formation movements (such as Dallas Willard, Richard Foster, and Eugene Peterson) have passed the torch to their disciples, some of whom are best known for their focus on certain techniques. In such circles, intrigue about the mechanics of how to pray “breath prayers” can surpass intrigue about the attributes of the God to whom we’re praying. Concern about insufficient solitude days can outweigh concern about besetting sin. Concern about insufficient solitude days can outweigh concern about besetting sin. Such focus on technique represents a drift from the intent of many spiritual formation OGs. Foster began his seminal work with this warning: “The inner attitude of the heart is far more crucial than the mechanics for coming into the reality of the spiritual life.” And Willard was vocal about his fear that techniques would become the overpowering focus of the spiritual formation movement. Sin Is the Great Barrier Insofar as mechanics have gained outsize emphasis in present-day spiritual formation movements, Peter Adam offers a corrective: “The great barrier to true spirituality is not the lack of technique in spiritual aptitude, but sin.” Prayer is a fitting example. Aren’t we told repeatedly in Scripture that it’s our sin, more than our technique, that will keep our prayers from being heard (Ps. 66:18; Prov. 21:13; Isa. 59:2; James 4:3; 1 Pet. 3:7)? Many have found Adam’s assessment accurate. I think of the young man who told me, While I was addicted, all I could hear God saying to me in every Scripture text was “stop looking at porn.” Sermons and devotions felt stale as a result. Now that I’m no longer enslaved to that sin, it’s like I’m reading a whole new book! That response resonates with me. While a few of my experiences with techniques like wordless prayer or modified lectio divina have seemed to stimulate communion with God, most of the lasting leaps in my walk with the Lord have come in conjunction with recognizing and repenting of sinful patterns. While learning my Enneagram number (“I’m a 1!”) did help me get out of a spiritually dry patch, it did so only by way of facilitating self-examination (“I’ve been carrying around simmering resentment without realizing it!”). Technique Has a Place That said, Scripture prevents us from overstating Adam’s case. While the great barrier to true spirituality may indeed be sin, biblical characters still avail themselves of spiritual techniques without embarrassment. Isn’t this what Daniel is doing when he prays on his knees three times a day with his windows open facing Jerusalem (Dan. 6:10)? Is this not what Elisha does when he calls for a musician before he speaks for the Lord (2 Kings 3:15)? For that matter, isn’t it what Jesus does when, instead of remaining in distraction-filled houses, he goes to solitary places to pray (Luke 5:16)? “Get rid of sin, and you’ll automatically enjoy a rich spiritual life” may be insufficient guidance. Even the sinless One employed a strategy to enhance his “quiet times.” Yet not all spiritual techniques are created equal. How do we know which are helpful? Once we’ve rejected techniques that run contrary to God’s self-revelation (such as mediums and Ouija boards) and wholeheartedly embraced practices God prescribes (such as Scripture memorization, prayer, and corporate worship), we might carve out a third, “possibly helpful but not essential” category for spiritual practices modeled (though not commanded) in Scripture. If Elisha could be helped by music and Jesus could be helped by solitude, then against these there’s no law. Still, these shouldn’t be taken as universally prescriptive. In what may be the noisiest era in history, some of us probably need less background music; in what may be the loneliest era in history, some of us probably need less solo time. Greater Value: Godliness There’s no reason we should be inflexibly closed to trying a new spiritual technique, especially if we’ve searched our hearts and confessed and repented of all known sin, yet still struggled to connect with God. Participating in a digital fast could reawaken awe of God that has been dulled by scrolling. Praying Scripture can revitalize a prayer life that has become repetitive. Biblical characters still avail themselves of spiritual techniques without embarrassment. Yet not all spiritual techniques are created equal. Techniques can help, but we ought not esteem them higher than the basic pursuit of holiness and ongoing killing of sin. If we want to walk by the Spirit, the New Testament authors emphasize not honing our mechanics but rather putting to death the works of the flesh (Gal. 5:24). We can employ techniques in the battle against sin and the pursuit of communion with God, but we ought not trust in these mechanisms more than we trust in God himself. John Piper steers us rightly in When I Don’t Desire God: “Our strategies must be humble and dependent, followed by ‘May the LORD do what seems good to him’ (2 Sam. 10:12). . . . If joy is a gift from God, we will use all his appointed means, but we will not trust in means, but in God.” As long as we don’t trust in or overemphasize them, spiritual formation techniques are of some value. But godliness (still) has value for all things.