MovieChat Forums > Braveheart (1995) Discussion > A list of the film's main inaccuracies a...

A list of the film's main inaccuracies and accuracies


The film is notorious for its inaccuracies: (1.) kilts did not become a popular form of men’s wear in Scotland until almost 400 years later. (2.) The first night or Primae Noctis wherein English nobles had the privilege of sleeping with Sottish brides is considered a historical urban myth by most historians. While there are plenty of writings that allude to it, there’s very little legitimate evidence that it was ever actually used by any nobles anywhere. (3.) Scots at the time of Wallace didn’t paint their faces for battle, although the Picts did wear blue face paint to scare off the Romans centuries earlier. (4.) We see no bridge at the Battle of Sterling Bridge in the movie. In the real battle the English had to cross a small bridge to attack the Scottish, but the bridge only allowed for three cavalrymen to cross at a time, which Wallace’s men took advantage of, immediately killing the English once they made it to the other side.

(5.) Princess Isabelle of France (Sophie Marceau) was actually only 3-4 years old during Wallace’s military campaigns and, in fact, never met Wallace. (6.) Although it’s one of the best scenes in the movie, Phillip was never defenestrated (thrown out a high window), but lived long after Longshanks’ death. However, it is likely true that wimpy Prince Edward II had homosexual affairs, although he fathered as many as five children. (7.) While Longshanks was present at the Battle of Falkirk and was known for using Irish & Welsh conscripts, at no point did the Scots and Irish stop in the middle of battle to shake hands. Also Edward I (aka Longshanks) never told his archers to fire blindly into the mêlée of English and Scots. (8.) Robert the Bruce (Angus Macfadyen) never betrayed Wallace, although he initially disowned him publicly, he secretly supported his war effort and openly admitted it later.

Despite these inaccuracies, the gist of the tale is true: William Wallace existed. He fought a battle with the English at Stirling and won. He fought another battle with the English at Falkirk, but was betrayed and lost. He was deceived and captured by the English, taken to London and excruciatingly executed (although it was even worse in real life than in the film). Wallace`s rebellion set Scotland on the road to freedom.

reply

FUCK THE KINGDOM OF SCOTLAND AND FUCK WALLACE

reply

Did you wake up on the wrong side of bed? (lol)

reply

NO I DIDENT. I JUST KNOW THE TRUTH. TRUTH IS KINGDOMS ARE KINGDOMS. THE SCOTS WERE NO LESS BRUTAL THEN THE ENGLISH. THE REAL VICTIMS ARE THE PEASENTS OF BOTH SIDES. THATS WHY I SAY FUCK WALLACE AND FUCK HIS KINGDOM. HE WAS A NOBLE SADISTIC ASSHOLE PIECE OF SHIT AND HE DESERVED WHAT HE GOT. HE DIDENT FIGHT FOR FREEDOM OF ANYONE

reply

TRUTH IS KINGDOMS ARE KINGDOMS. THE SCOTS WERE NO LESS BRUTAL THEN THE ENGLISH. THE REAL VICTIMS ARE THE PEASENTS OF BOTH SIDES.


You mean the ruling Scots.

You're speaking in generalities, but there's a lot of truth in these words.

reply

Nationality dident existed in the past. The movie try to hammer this fake scotland pride. In reality people fought for money or for fun. No peasents would care to fight for the kingdom of scotland. This is noble class teritory.

reply

Tribalism has been global throughout human history. It's the micro form of nationalism.

reply

TRIBALISM YES. NATIONALISM NO. THERE WAS NO SIGNIFICANCE WHATSOEVER TO BE A PEASENT IN ENGLAND OR TO BE A PEASENT IN SCOTLAND.

reply

What about ancient nations like Egypt, Iraq and Israel, the latter being a consolidation of 12 tribes? What about Assyria? These are four off the top of my head. I'm sure the citizens of these cultures had a sense of national unity and pride.

reply

they dident. not in ancient times. there was peasent class and royal class back then just as the rest of the world. nationality as a whole dident existed. kingdoms existed but there was no ''nation of assyria''. if you were a peasent you wouldent care about the country boundries you live in. in fact there were no real boundries. its not like in todays world when you cross to land and suddenly you are in a diffrent country. it dident matter back then. it had no significanse

reply

Kingdoms were nations, just with an imperial form of government. Generally speaking, farmers in Iowa could care less about the border of North Dakota (with Canada) or the border of New Mexico (with Mexico). I'm just sayin'.

The borders of ancient Egypt aren't like they are today (wide and square-ish), but resembled a snake corresponding to the Nile River. Borders were much "softer" then, but there were still borders. For instance, the borders of Alexander the Great's conquered lands, which were split between his four generals after this death. The ever-changing borders of the Roman empire are another.

Peasants cared about who had political control over their areas because it determined their quality of life, protection, abuse, etc.

Common soldiers were basically just peasants in uniform trained to fight; they had a sense of kingdom/empire (national) pride, particularly when they fought other countries.

If the peasants in Scotland were being abused by the English nobles in 1300 you can be sure they were for Scottish freedom and, hence, were rooting (and fighting) for Wallace's rebellion.

But you're right that the Scottish rulers could be just as bad as English nobles. It's like the song goes: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" (or whatever).

reply

What about ancient nations like Egypt, Iraq and Israel, the latter being a consolidation of 12 tribes? What about Assyria? These are four off the top of my head. I'm sure the citizens of these cultures had a sense of national unity and pride.


Political entities existed but not nation-states. The Middle East in particular was always extremely multi-ethnic, and still is; back then there was no real sense of such-and-such people and their nation. All kinds of people lived in different kingdoms and realms. The main distinctions between peoples were which king or lord they lived under, and later on which religion they followed. Take Egypt for example, which you mentioned, which has only been ruled by what we now call indigenous Egyptians for a minority of its history. For a long time it was ruled by Persians. For centuries it was ruled by Greeks. Then by Romans, and then Greeks who called themselves Romans. Later by Arabs from the Arabian peninsula. After that by Mamluks from the Eurasian Steppes and the Caucasus. Then by Turks for 400 years after that. The indigenous Egyptians didn't particularly care about the origin of their rulers, because there was no concept of nationalism. They might rebel against particularly oppressive and exploitative rulers, but not because they weren't "Egyptian".

Nation-states and nationalism are a modern invention, and in fact the imposition of nation-states with borders set in stone dividing people into nationalities has caused all kinds of problems in the Middle East, Africa and other parts of the world in our time.

reply

back then there was no real sense of such-and-such people and their nation. All kinds of people lived in different kingdoms and realms.


Congratulations, you just described many modern Western-styled nations, like USA, Canada, the UK, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand.

reply

FR-E-E-E-E-E-D-O-O-O-M!!!

reply

Very interesting stuff...i knew a bit of that but you gave me some interesting info about one of my favorite pictures
Thanks Wuchak!

reply

It was never intended to be a historically accurate documentary and shouldn't be judged by that standard.

reply

No, it's a historically based story and should be judged accordingly, which I did.

But read my final paragraph, which you seemed to miss.

reply

Wallace`s rebellion set Scotland on the road to freedom.
Did it?

reply

Well, Wallace's efforts were the first part of what historians call the First War of Scottish Independence culminating with the de jure restoration of Scottish independence with the Treaty of Edinburgh-Northampton in 1328.

reply

And in 2014 Scotland had a blood free vote to leave the UK and have its' independence. They chose not to, so Wallace wasted his breath.

reply

I kinda laughed at the notion of "freedom" for all Scots when a majority of the peasants and farmers who sided with Wallace had no real rights or freedoms. They were all subjects of various Scottish Noblemen who were in turn subjects to the Bruces. Save for the Highlanders, but even they had their own rules and constitutions which I'm sure didn't include the type of "freedom" expressed by Gibson's William Wallace. The movie portrays the notion that the Scots were a free-ranging people who were suddenly held captive by English Rule and their Noblemen were partial to it.

reply

To add to the inaccuracies noted by the Original Poster

Braveheart Might Be The Most Historically Inaccurate Movie Ever Made
https://www.ranker.com/list/historical-mistakes-errors-and-inaccuracies-in-braveheart/machk

"...William Wallace was an actual Scottish rebel... during the reign of King William I until his execution in 1305. The bad news is, pretty much everything else in Braveheart is wrong."

William Wallace Was Not 'Braveheart'
It was the name given to Robert the Bruce, a Scottish hero who is portrayed as a traitor in the film. He was given the name posthumously when, according to his wishes, his heart was removed and taken to be buried in Scotland.

The Timeline Of The Movie Is Completely Wrong
...The film opens in 1276, at which point in reality King Alexander III of Scotland was still alive and the English weren't yet making much of a fuss over Scotland. The rebellion began in 1296. Additionally, in reality King Edward I did not die at the same time as William Wallace as the film suggests, he died several years later. King Edward II did not marry Isabella until after Wallace's death, at which time she was 13, considerably younger than the 29-year-old Sophie Marceau who played her in the film.

There Is No Evidence Of A Fake Scottish Summit
In the film, the trouble in William Wallace's life begins when the men of his Scottish village are called to a meeting with the English that ends up being a trap. All the Scots at the meeting are brutally murdered... This atrocity provokes Wallace's father and the other patriarchs in his village to fight back, resulting in his father's death. There is no historical evidence, however, that this treacherous meeting ever happened. Scottish nobles did swear fealty to the king of England, but they weren't killed afterwards...

reply

William's Father Did Not Die During His Childhood
William Wallace's father, Sir Malcom Wallace, did not die when William was a young boy, orphaning him and leaving him with a hatred of violence and the English. Malcolm Wallace died in 1291 after being involved in several skirmishes with the English over the years and his son William was a full-fledged adult rebel at the time of his death.

There Was No Uncle Argyle
In Braveheart, young William Wallace is taken in by his badass Uncle Argyle, who teaches him Latin and shows him how to be a cultured Scot. This just didn't happen,

William Wallace Was No Commoner
Throughout Braveheart, the viewer is reminded that William Wallace comes from humble means. The nobles refer to him as a commoner, his burlap outfits are covered in dirt, and the roof of his house is made of straw. This... is fiction. The Wallaces were a longstanding and noble family and William's father, Malcolm, was a knight. William would have had an excellent education and military training. Oh, and he wasn't a Highlander, either. He was from the Lowlands, of the same Anglo-Norman descent as his English rivals.

Bagpipes Were Not Banned
... Lie: the supposedly banned use of bagpipes pointed out by scary [and fictional] Uncle Argyle (Brian Cox) after the funeral of William's brother and father [who did not die then]. Bagpipes have been banned in Scotland's history, but [not] in the thirteenth century.

King William I Was Not A Pagan
The opening monologue in Braveheart... "Edward the Longshanks," ...is called a "pagan." ... He was a Christian who was dedicated to the Anglo-Saxon king and Saint Edward the Confessor. He had even been on several Crusades.

reply

King Edward II was not a gay stereotype
...People were more riled up at Edward's tendency to give titles to non-noble people. Whether he was romantically involved with any of those people is conjecture. Nor is it likely Edward was disgusted by his wife. The film portrays him as unable to conceive, but in reality he fathered four children with her...

The [Supposed] Lover of Edward II Was Not Thrown Out Of A Window By Edward I
...No close friend of Edward II is ever said to have died in this manner.

The Scots Never Sacked York
...Wallace and his men never sacked York, they looted and destroyed the city of Carlisle.

The English Soldiers Did Not Wear Matching Uniforms
The immaculate, matching uniforms of the English in the film is not a failure only on Braveheart's part. To be fair, almost every movie about medieval Europe gets this wrong. The reality would be visually confusing to most movie watchers. In the thirteenth century, soldiers were not wearing matching standards over their chain mail, they were wearing whatever tunics they could find or afford...

reply