Google
 

View Full Version : Debunking Braveheart


Criminal
04-04-2006, 02:38 PM
A fun film to watch, yes... but I found this interesting.

1 Braveheart's plot includes an affair between William Wallace and the Princess Isabelle, based upon Isabella of France. The film implies she is pregnant at the time of Wallace's execution, carrying the future Edward III of England. Historically, the real Isabella was a child of nine still living in France at this time, meaning she never met Wallace, and furthermore, was never a Princess of Wales, as she married Edward II after he became king.

2 Edward III of England was born in 1312, seven years after Wallace's death; thus it is impossible for Edward III to have been Wallace's son. (Note: this idea may have been derived from the play The Wallace by Sydney Goodsir Smith.)

3 Gibson was criticised for his portrayal of Isabella's future husband, Edward II of England. Although most historians agree that Edward was homosexual, many complained that the film presented demeaning stereotypes towards Edward. In the commentary, Mel Gibson explained he had not intended to show hatred towards anyone portrayed in the film (including the English). It should also be recalled that Mel Gibson did not write the screenplay.
3 The Battle of Stirling Bridge, the first skirmish in the film, was filmed without a bridge. The actual conflict was more of an ambush of the English as they attempted to cross a river. (It is rumoured that Gibson told a Scottish local the bridge was removed as it got in the way, and the local replied "that's what the English found" [1].)

4 The film also makes no mention of Andrew de Moray, Wallace's companion-in-arms and a major contributor at this battle. Curiously, the fight shown in the film is more like the Battle of Bannockburn 17 years later, with English cavalry charging Scottish schiltrons and being repulsed.

5 The film creates the impression that William Wallace invented the Scottish schiltrons and handed out pikes just before the battle. This is completely untrue.

6 Edward I's second wife, Margaret, whom he married in 1299, is absent from the film, although the span of history covered in the production includes this year. This implies his first wife Eleanor of Castile was his only spouse.

7 The film shows Irish conscripts switching sides and joining Wallace's forces at the Battle of Falkirk. The Irish forces were hired mercenaries who, from all accounts, fought well for Edward I. The Celtic soldiers who did display some rebellious tendencies were the Welsh, who had been conquered about a decade earlier. Edward I intended to use them as the first wave of attack and essentially as schiltron fodder. They did not take kindly to such intentions, even if they did not actually switch sides.

8 The film implies that Wallace's rebellion took place against a background of a fairly lengthy English occupation of Scotland. Actually, they had only invaded Scotland the year before (1296) and the mass hanging of Scottish nobles which Wallace witnessed as a boy could not have occured at that time.

9 The sword carried by Gibson is a 16th century Scottish claymore. While a sword which is claimed to have belonged to Wallace (although this is disputed) exists in Scotland, it is significantly simpler.

10 There is some controversy about whether the jus prima noctis (also known as the droit de seigneur), the supposed right of a Lord to deflower virgins in his territory, actually existed, but it certainly never existed in either England or Scotland.

11 It is unclear whether Wallace had a wife or what her name was, but according to Scottish tradition her name was Marion Braidfute, apparently her name was changed to Murron in the film so audiences would not confuse her with Maid Marian from the Robin Hood stories.

12 Wallace's long-standing hatred for the English may not have been because of his wife's death. According to one legend, it arose from the fact that two English soldiers challenged Wallace over some fish he had caught. The argument escalated into a fight, resulting in Wallace killing the soldiers.

12 The then-future King Robert the Bruce is described as "Earl of Bruce", but actually, his title before becoming king was Earl of Carrick.
Braveheart suggests Wallace supported the Bruce claim to the Scottish throne; however, Wallace supported the Balliol claim while Bruce was convinced of his father's rightful succession.

13 The reality of William Wallace's capture and execution was far worse than shown in the film.

14 The movie depicts Robert the Bruce's father (who was also named Robert) as a leper. There is no historical record of this though Bruce himself contracted a disease before his death that has sometimes been alleged to be leprosy.

15 Bruce did not betray Wallace at Falkirk. He did eventually switch sides but that was a few years later and as a result of a dispute with the Comyns (not depicted in the film) who supported the Balliol claim to the throne. The Scottish war effort collapsed a few years later because of the defeat of their French allies by the Flemish at Courtrai in 1302. Wallace was hunted down when the Scots were forced to surrender in 1305.

16 In his speech before the battle of Stirling Bridge, Mel Gibson's Wallace alludes to a hundred years of tyranny. Ironically, the 13th century was one of the few centuries when Anglo-Scottish relations were relatively peaceful. This changed after the unexpected death of Alexander III in 1286, when Edward I stepped in to resolve the dispute over the Scottish crown, and used this opportunity to revive English claims of overlordship.

17 The film depicts Edward I dying at the same time as Wallace was executed. In fact, Wallace's execution took place in 1305, in Westminster, and King Edward died in 1307, two years later, en route to put down a fresh rebellion of the Scots, led by Robert the Bruce.

18 The film depicts Edward I defenestrating a male close friend and implied lover of the Prince of Wales. Edward never killed or harmed his son's lovers.
In battle,

19 Wallace is shown painted blue with woad, a fashion that had become extinct at least with the Picts, some 5 centuries before his time, if not even earlier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braveheart

RightWingZealot
04-04-2006, 04:05 PM
are there people who actually thought Braveheart was historically accurate?

It was fun to watch.
So was Kingdom of Heaven, but that also was totaly inaccurate historically.

GSrider
04-04-2006, 05:36 PM
Historical inaccuracy doesnt surprise me......most fiilmmakers can't accurately recreate 15 years ago, never mind 8 or 9 centuries...there are always flaws, because it's easier because most of the filmgoers won't know or notice anyway...

I could type thousands of words about the mistakes in Quadrophenia...that was made only 15 years after the era it tries to recreate. Cracking film regardless.....

As for 'The Krays' ...hopeless. A work of complete fantasy. Miles off in all easily checkable facts...

The best recreation of the past I've ever seen is a little known film called 'The Token King' made mid 90's, set early-mid 1970's. So well done that on first watching it I really didnt know whether it was just an old film made at the time....
That was made by a youth theatre group, on a budget of next to nothing....

Modette
04-04-2006, 05:45 PM
As for 'The Krays' ...hopeless. A work of complete fantasy. Miles off in all easily checkable facts...

How so? and what does this have to do with Braveheart?

Only sayin is all:hmm:

GSrider
04-04-2006, 05:55 PM
JUst another example of a film that purports to show history being made up rubbish, or having historical facts changed for the sake of the storyline.

The Krays......watch that as a historical recreation and you'll come away thinking that George Cornell and Jack 'The Hat' McVitie died during one night of madness and violence.

The 2 killings were a year and a half apart...

It was all glamour and crap, nowhere did it show the truth about the Krays, how they operated and their downfall...


Quadrophenia? Bikes are wrong, cars are wrong, clothes are wrong,music is wrong,continuity is a joke.......but the feel comes over well, so it's still a great film.

Modette
04-04-2006, 07:37 PM
Quadrophenia? Bikes are wrong, cars are wrong, clothes are wrong,music is wrong,continuity is a joke.......but the feel comes over well, so it's still a great film.

What does GSrider stand for? and about Quadrophenia:mad: I love that film!

If everything is so wrong, then why bother to comment!:mad:

I am a MOD through and through and I do not meen moderator!:mad:

Even Jed (Igofast) has acknowledged that he has knowledge of the scene and even has some friends on the scene!

Just because you appear to live in the same country as me does not make you my buddy on this forum!:|

Ok, I apologise for that, lest I get a warning and I should perhaps welcome your ideas on here all the same as I do think alike in some areas and continue to enjoy your opinions! all the same:p

"Keep on keepin On":) :) :) :) :)

Dogberry
04-17-2006, 12:08 PM
A fun film to watch, yes... but I found this interesting.

1 Braveheart's plot includes an affair between William Wallace and the Princess Isabelle, based upon Isabella of France. The film implies she is pregnant at the time of Wallace's execution, carrying the future Edward III of England. Historically, the real Isabella was a child of nine still living in France at this time, meaning she never met Wallace, and furthermore, was never a Princess of Wales, as she married Edward II after he became king. [QUOTE=Criminal]

2 Edward III of England was born in 1312, seven years after Wallace's death; thus it is impossible for Edward III to have been Wallace's son. (Note: this idea may have been derived from the play The Wallace by Sydney Goodsir Smith.)

One to many 'I' Edward II was around when Wallace died, he have been about 20 so Isabella (the she wolf of france) would also have been around

Wallace didnt dye his face blue and didnt wear a kilt.

Thec Welsh soldiers at Falkirk were Archers, they went on strike for more pay just before the battle. The irish mercenaries as stated fought well.

It was usual to have lots of mercenaries in the middle ages.

Previously the Scots had fought with Edward I to subdue Wales, so no real love was lost between the Welsh and Scots.

I have never watched it and dont intend to, might throw comething at the screen. :D

I hate Mel Gibson.

SwiftSloth
04-17-2006, 12:27 PM
You think Bravehearts bad?

Watch Glory, then read a book on what actually happend.

Great, great film. But it couldnt give a shit less about history, like any hollywood film that predates 1900.

Dogberry
04-17-2006, 01:28 PM
You think Bravehearts bad?

Watch Glory, then read a book on what actually happend.

Great, great film. But it couldnt give a shit less about history, like any hollywood film that predates 1900.

I watched Glory and then read up on it! Some of it was true but like you say Hollywood screwed it around alot.

Hollywood really doesnt have to re-arrange history when often the real story is interesting enough.

Back in 1999 people over here got steamed up because U171 (I think it was called) depicted US sailors capturing an enigma machine when in real life it was the Royal Navy.

As long as people realize hollywood is entertainment and not fact it is OK. Trouble is i believe alot of people get their history from films.

Criminal
04-17-2006, 02:47 PM
Back in 1999 people over here got steamed up because U171 (I think it was called) depicted US sailors capturing an enigma machine when in real life it was the Royal Navy.

U171 sucked but you do get to see Jon Bon Jovi's head get ripped off. The whole movie was worth it for me just to see that happen. :D

Google