Braveheart, the Movie

[Benderino]

I hear time and time again from avid historians that the film Braveheart had multiple historical inaccuracies. What are such mistakes/inaccuracies? I love the movie as a movie, it's definetly in my top 3 of all time, but what's wrong with its history?

 

[Bugfatty300]

The only one I know about is that the Battle of Sterling didn't have a bridge.

 

[privatehudson]

http://www.medievalscotland.org/scotbiblio/bravehearterrors.shtml

And that's just in two minutes

Oh and the Battle of Stirling was fought over a Bridge largely, hence it's full title, Stirling Bridge. Braveheart left it out for financial reasons.

Further checks show:

Edward Longshanks did not die at the same time as Wallace, but years later, and he was certainly no pagan.

 

[Benderino]

Perhaps he was considered "pagan" by the Scottish narrator, Robert the Bruce? Ya know, Scottish medieval propoganda?

 

[privatehudson]

Possibly, but the point is that the movie is full of more holes a collander

I don't mind the movie itself, but as that site says, it's a fantasy movie which only extremely loosely relates to historical events.

 

[Colonel]

One this is the GREATEST MOVIE EVER MADE!!!!!!!!

Second, most of the historical inaccuarcies are because that part of history isnt well known

 

[privatehudson]

Oh come on, most of them they only had to do a little research on and they would have found it out. The truth is more that the fantasy made for better storytelling than the reality

 

[Bugfatty300]

Still a great movie. When I first watched it and heard the name Longshanks, I instantly knew that Longshanks would be the first name of my first child. Boy or girl and I don't care what the mother would think. Longshanks is the most awesome name I've ever heard!

 

[Pangur Bán]

Just to inform international posters, the highly charged politics of the film motivate people to exaggerate inaccuracies and generally attack the movie. The film is no more inaccurate than other Hollywood historical epics, like The Gladiator or El Cid. Much of the source material comes from later Anglo-Scottish epic poetry, and it isn't clear to me how much of that Randal Wallace used, because I haven't read much of it. The main storyline of the film is accurate and/or plausible, even if the film is full of inaccuracies like the missing bridge, the relationship with the queen, timing of death and such.

 

[samildanach]

As one of the boards resident Scots I can tell you its absolutely true. With one caveat, the English were even more dastardly than the movie depicts . It completely misses out those English monkeys burning the town I grew up in ( Auchterarder ) to the ground on their way to Stirling.
Their complete lack of respect for Scottish property, women and William Wallaces dangly bits is absolutely spot on. And the English losiing the war, of course.

But if the English posters want to cry Hollywoods picking on us. Thats fine because they won't see the Clan Samildanach coming and they'll wake up one morning to find Sunderland a smoking ruin ( even more so than usual)
Auchterarder will be avenged

 

[YotoKiller]

When I first watched it and heard the name Longshanks, I instantly knew that Longshanks would be the first name of my first child.

You sir, should be put in a prison before you are allowed to father a child

 

[Pangur Bán]

http://www.medievalscotland.org/scotbiblio/bravehearterrors.shtml


.

That link contains almost as many inaccuracies as the film.

Point 12, " many of whom were their relatives, and spoken a Scottish dialect of English and/or Anglo-Norman French, again like the English nobles. Such were the families of Wallace, Bruce, Balliol, Murray, Stewart, Douglas, Comyn, and many others."

That is slightly anachronistic. For instance, the families of Murray, Bruce and Stewart at this point, were Gaelic and French speakers, with mixed Scottish (Gaelic) and Norman blood. English was a burgh language in the lowlands and south-eastern borders, shunned my the aristocracies of both England and Scotland.


Point 8: "King John ruled until 1296, when he was forced to abdicate (after going to war with England due to opposition to such things as Edward's "cruel" insistence on hearing appeals of Scottish court cases in England and due to the Scottish nobles not wanting to be made to fight for England in foreign wars). "

That is politically motivated tripe.

 

[Colonel]

Oh come on, most of them they only had to do a little research on and they would have found it out. The truth is more that the fantasy made for better storytelling than the reality

I dont think you understand NO ONE knows truely that much about this part of history most of this history is biaised either if it is English makeing the scotish to be bad or Scotish makeing the english appear to be super evil and so on, and also even what is known could be wrong for some reason or another

 

[Longasc]

Well, true, Braveheart is like many other Hollywood movies of the medieval times.
Gladiator has many flaws, too. But I am not about to defend Braveheart.

I always wonder how they manage to cut with their swords through plate armor or other types of heavy armor and spill blood as if the armor did not exist at all. The way of fighting is rather idealized.

http://www.moviemistakes.com/film207

You can look up other movies there, too. There are several with much more inaccuracies.

There are some movies trying to be accurate, e.g. Knights in Full Plate cannot stand up alone after falling from the horse - this is not true, they could. They were killed on the ground, got the throat cut or a knife in one eye or so, because after dropping from a horse in battle you are indeed quite beaten up, an many got killed during the time they needed to recover from the fall and stand up again.

Please note, this was just an example standing for many movies, not Braveheart in particular.

 

[Vilati Timmadar]

Is that important? It's a great movie, let it rest.

As far as I know, Wallace's uprising lasted für 10 to 15 years and after that Robert the Bruce had to fight at least two or three major battles in a long lasting war before Scotland became independent again.

Of course there are historical flaws in the movie - 'cause it's a movie. It must have a structure in tension-rising and some other things like romance and friendship and betrayal and stuff like that. Nobody was thinking that he'd see a documentary there, right??

 

[TrailblazingScot]

Is that important? It's a great movie, let it rest.

As far as I know, Wallace's uprising lasted für 10 to 15 years and after that Robert the Bruce had to fight at least two or three major battles in a long lasting war before Scotland became independent again.

Of course there are historical flaws in the movie - 'cause it's a movie. It must have a structure in tension-rising and some other things like romance and friendship and betrayal and stuff like that. Nobody was thinking that he'd see a documentary there, right??

Then they should have that disclaimer where they say it may be based on reality, but changed for artistic reasons or that it is completely made up and any relation to characters living or dead is simply coincidental

Truely, this film took the biscuit for historical inaccuracy, from the scenery, the sort of dress the Scots would be wearing, the appearance and conduct of the battles, the reason sucession was disputed in Scotland, the character of Robert the Bruce and when King Edward died in relation to William Wallace (a good 2 years difference).

You could mention also that his wife was burned in her house (house as compared to those mud-shacks) with her servants by English troopers and that provoked (the already outlaw) Wallace to attack Lanark and chop the Sheriff into little pieces. Nice attempted rape scene however

Also, it would have been nice for Mel Gibson to have to act getting his genitals burnt in front of his eyes rather than crying out "FREEDOM"

 

[privatehudson]

That link contains almost as many inaccuracies as the film.

What two?

Personally I think the movies good, but it's blatantly biased in favour of the Scots and makes the english into either stupid or evil. No real attempt was made to explain the english side of the story and what motivated the English efforts. The movie changes certain aspects of history or ignores others simply to make the storyline more romantic.

Thats fine because they won't see the Clan Samildanach coming and they'll wake up one morning to find Sunderland a smoking ruin

Hey I know a few Newcastle people who would gladly PAY you to see that happen

I dont think you understand NO ONE knows truely that much about this part of history most of this history is biaised either if it is English makeing the scotish to be bad or Scotish makeing the english appear to be super evil and so on, and also even what is known could be wrong for some reason or another

It is still best to at least attempt to conform to commonly accepted opinion, and attempt to show both sides of a story rather than one.

That is politically motivated tripe

So is 99% of the movie Besides, whatever the comment, was he or was he not king until then?

 

[Longasc]

Mel Gibson plans to make a movie about the Maccabees. The Passion of Christ was also heavily biased and reduced the whole story to bloody mess, IMO. Some even say anti-yewish, I thought it was only lacking ideas and put emphasis on really only one aspect, to show the passion of Christ... the title fit well. But there was not much more in this movie than putting a bit the blame on the yews, which is only a problem if you know of the sect Mel Gibson is member of and about various radical quotes of his father.

Gibson was not the director of Braveheart, if you want to see some really political and religious motivated movies, try the Passion of Christ. The Maccabees might turn out as a Braveheart-copy, I see little room in this setting for religious messages and political ones, besides the usual hymn of freedom over everything, which is quite common and politically correct and accepted.

 

[Vilati Timmadar]

Er...Gibson was the director of Braveheart. I think he got an oscar for it.

 

[CruddyLeper]

Well, one historical inaccuracy not listed so far... the real William Wallace didn't have an Australian accent.

I think it's a great movie, and brings to life part of history that the English would rather have forgotten. Warts and all, I love it.