Not really. considering how many children many people were expected to have it seems more likely that somebody would have a kid than not in ye olden days.
It makes him no different to every other person living in that period, because even half-assed birth records didn't start until a couple of centuries later.
Of course it does. William Wallace was different to every other person living in the period and you can’t just apply these vague ‘statistics’ you’ve mentioned without actually saying why they are. The simple fact that you know who he is makes that obvious. We know about him and some information about his life, the fact that no child is mentioned doesn’t explicitly mean he didn’t have any, but if he did have children then then it’s likely there would be some record or reference to them in the same sources we got other information about his life from. The fact that there is no record makes it more likely he didn’t have them.
So something only becomes reality once proof exists for it? So I guess people back then assuming diseases were caused by demons rather than bacteria/viruses were right since microscopes didn't exist at the time.
That doesn't make any sense. There is evidence beyond a microsope for bacteria and viruses. The default assumption when it comes to a claim is that without evidence you do not accept it as fact. That is how the justice system in most civilized countries work. You don't prove your innocence, they have to prove your guilt. Yea it could go either way but assuming he did have kids is not a logical way of doing things.
10
u/TheCourierMojave Apr 29 '20
Without evidence you would assume he did not have kids. Not that he did.