Braveheart : historical fact v Hollywood fiction

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Alan-Heaths-History-Page/173472422695696


The 1995 film Braveheart is a ripping yarn but not much more than that.

William Wallace is a historical character that history has treated very well. This is even more the case with Mel Gibson who produced a work of fiction purporting to be fact although some of the incidents shown in this film are indeed true.
One of the most interesting characters is that of Edward I who probably was as brutal as portrayed in the film.
The most ridiculous is that of Isabella who is the bride of Edward's son. The film shows her negotiating with Wallace and then falling in love with him. Pretty magical for someone who did not travel to England until some five years after Wallace died. Gibson's take on this is that Edward I in enforcing the right of the first night wanted to breed a race that was no longer Scots but mixed with his own nobles. However the tables are turned at the end when Sophie Marceau admits that she is pregnant with Wallace's child and that child will be the legal successor to the throne. This is utter nonsense as Edward never suggested enforcing the right of the first night.
(I would be interested to know where this was actually used as it goes against the religious principles of the time.)
The addition of these absurds scenes with Sophie Marceau is no doubt following a trend of putting in some silly love interest. I am not too certain why these scenes are put in films, unless that is what the public wants.
The younger Edward is portrayed as being homosexual - he may well have been but effiminate or bordering on transvestite as suggested here he was not according to the chronicles of the time.
One chronicler wrote that had he spent as much time at his kingly duties as he did on gardening and digging trenches then England would have been the greatest country on earth. Or words to that effect.
By kingly duties one supposes he means killing people.
Wel Gibson refers to hundreds of years of warfare before the Battle of Stirling Bridge but he is wrong. That was to come. Until that time most raids had come in a southerly direction.

I think basically my beef is that in an age when popular films were moving in a direction of being historically accurate, Mel Gibson chose to do a work of fiction. This is a pity because he had starred in one 'revisionist' film, that of the Bounty in 1982 which gave a true portrayal of Captain Bligh as being a good and kind hearted captain much ahead of his time unlike every other portrayal of this seafarer.
The next historically absurd blockbuster is Gladiator but I will save ranting about that for another day.

For those interested I will sometime in the future put up some information on Stirling and the battles of Stirling Bridge and Bannockburn - both crushing English defeats by much smaller Scots forces.

My friend vpunch writes to add the following relevant comments:

Gibson is nothing but a sensationalist.

Braveheart itself is a decent action flick, but nothing more.

I can't help but think back to when this film came out, a news reporter for Reporting Scotland asked clubbers what they wanted most (politically) and they all answered 'Independence!' When asked why, they couldn't come up with a decent asnwer; often referring to Braveheart. True, devolution would have happened anyway, but it's undeniable that Braveheart had its part to play in the minds of the populuos.

The notion of William Wallace as a national hero for Scotland was conjured up during the Victorian era during a resurgance of Scottish national identity. It's wrong of me to say Wallace wasn't an important figure in Scottish history, although certainly he didn't have such an impact prior to the resurgence of the Scottish national identity as he does today. The Wallace monument is an example of this, it was only built during the Victorian era.

What else is there? Oh yes, the kilt. The Jacobite Uprising led Highland Scots to wear the kilt, however, following the suppression of the Jacobites, the kilt was banned and largely forgotten in the Highlands. At some point, the ban on the kilt was lifted. It then became a popular garment of Scottish 'Romantics' to wear, most notably by Sir Walter Scott for King George IV's visit to Scotland.

AND AGAIN...The Victorians...Queen Victoria no less, liked the kilt and Scottish culture. Once she picked up the trend, then the middle-classes in England picked up too - at a time that led to Scotland becoming a popular tourist destination all down to Queen Victoria.

Since then the kilt has been associated with Scottih national identity.

I think that's enough for now...quite the long comment, non?

Disgruntled Scotsman.


Please also see my website and blogs which contain information about where this was filmed and some of the background: http://www.pbn.com.pl and http://www.ceepackaging.com

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Mel
• Gibson
• Braveheart
• William
• Wallace
• Robert
• Bruce
• Stirling
• Edward
• Isabella
• Sophie
• Marceau
• homosexual
• transvestite
• swor

[FrancoHitlini]

@fatparrot66 I know, more credit for Moray please :)) Hands up! I am born English. However, my grandfather was born a decendant of Kenneth MacAlpine which is why I am so interested in Scots history. I am always torn between loyalties and get irritated by the anti-English thing and equally annoyed when Englishmen insult Scots. I am sure I am not alone and quietly laugh at the so called "Nationalists" who hide their questionable ancestory. I can't imagine what it must be like being born in Berwick

[FrancoHitlini]

@11nytram11 Quite agree. The Falkirk campaign was meant to be a scorched earth retreat and it almost worked as Edward was facing winter and already having to settle discorse amongst the Welsh in his camp. However, a scouts report that the Scots were assembling was all the half chance Edward needed to bring the Scots to battle. The English had used large numbers of archers before but, of course, the difference was it was this was the first massed use of longbows in the English army.

[alanheath]

@Englanistan Good points - thanks for making them. A number of interesting points have been made since this was posted!

[alanheath]

@Englanistan I think that that was obvious in the film - I may have been critical about some parts but that comes out when he demonstrates his knowledge of French.

[Histbuff1]

@Englanistan To be honest.. I have a mixture of English Scots and Welsh. My Grandfather was from Inverness so definitely a Scotsman. I consider myself British as I firmly believe that your ancestory is in the blood and not in geography. People move around for many reasons and I know that so many turn a blind eye to the fact that their own ancestory is not what they prefer to think but delusion is not my bag thanks.

[Englanistan]

@alanheath And lets not get started on Andrew de Moray's complete lack of portrayal in the film when he was just as great a Scottish Knight as Wallace was and equally played just as much a role as Wallace did despite dying first.

Robert I was more like what Wallace was in the film.

I heard that the Yankee behind the director of the film, Randall Wallace only changed the characters around and made it out like Wallace did what Robert I did just because he had the same surname as Wallace!

[Englanistan]

@alanheath You're wrong about King Robert I of Scots, he knew exactly what side he was on, portraying him as a turn coat to his own country was the biggest most offensive parts of the film to most Scots, Robert I of Scots was actually the true 'Braveheart' and gained that name by the black Douglas earl of Mar he first coined Robert as 'Braveheart', he did more for Scotland than Wallace did.

Wallace was Knighted by King Robert I of Scots and did have title of Guardianship of Scotland though.

[Englanistan]

@alanheath Wallace wasn't some dirt poor farmer like he's depicted in the film either, he was a highly intelligent, well educated, extensively travelled, land owning, noble Scottish Knight.

[Englanistan]

@alanheath Scotland wasn't anything like how the film had shown, in the film, Scotland is overall depicted as a stone age society and more like how Scotland would have roughly looked two thousand years earlier than the time of Braveheart. Scotland was a wealthy Northern European Kingdom. Not a Iron stone age land populated by dirt poor farmers.

Scotland was all Knights, Castles, Royalty and Sovereign Scots who knew their constitutions well.

[Englanistan]

@FrancoHitlini Yes but you are English and not Scottish regardless of descent, you're not one of this dumb deluded Yank Plastic people from America, a pretend Scot are you?

[TheNIck3338]

It's a movie? Not a re-enactment, well researched but may be still a little incorrect dependant on source research, again though, it's a movie.....what's the point? it's like "who killed who".."Monty Python". good listen though- via opinion. Thanks!