Changes

Jump to: navigation, search

How historically accurate is Braveheart

3 bytes removed, 16:16, 12 September 2019
no edit summary
<i>This article contains spoilers.</i>
Braveheart was a popular movie released in 1995 that won 5 Oscars and featured Mel Gibson as William Wallace. Wallace was a Scottish knight who became a hero in the Scottish rebellions against the English in the late 13th and early 14th century. The movie helped to inspire Scottish national pride while also, to some, represent an early, Medieval warrior who fought for freedom for himself and his people.  While much of the story depicted did occur, including the English occupation of Scotland during the time of Edward I, king of England, the depiction of the revolt against the English and other events do not correspond well to historical accounts.
__NOTOC__
====Early Years of William Wallace====
In the movie, William Wallace is suggested to have traveled in Europe during the early years of Edward I's occupation of Scotland. However, little is known about Wallace's early years. First, it is assumed Wallace came from a noble family; two villages are often claimed as his birth places birthplaces (Elderslie and Ellerslie), both on the western part of Scotland.<ref>For more on Wallace's early development years before he revolted against the English, see: Cushing, H. (2010). <i>The life of Sir William Osler.</i> [Vol. 1]: [...] (Nachdr. der Orig.-Ausg., Oxford. Hamburg: Severus Verl.</ref>
We do know that Wallace was an experienced swordsman and knight, which indicates he may have fought in wars prior to his own rebellion and participation in the wars against the English. In fact, one possibility is he fought with King Edward I as a mercenary during that king's wars against the Welsh. That may have been the most feasible path for him to have gained fighting experience and possibly learn about English war tactics.<ref>For more on William Wallace the knight, see: Brown, C. (2005). <i>William Wallace: The True Story of Braveheart.</i> Stroud: Tempus.</ref>
The movie depicts an aging Edward I as being tormented by William Wallace. The attacks were shown as successful skirmishes in most cases, but it is likely these attacks were either negligible, failures, or were insignificant. They did not have a meaningful impact on the English presence in Scotland. Edward I most likely did not consider Wallace a major threat at this point, because Wallace was struggling to raise an army after the disaster at Falkirk.
Additionally, he probably had a weakened position in Scotland. Wallace was betrayed, as suggested in the movie, by a Scottish noble (John de Menteith) who was loyal to Edward in 1305. Wallace was captured and soon put on trial for treason at Westminster Palace.  At the trial, he did seem to say that he was not guilty of treason because he never claimed loyalty to the English crown. This was depicted in the movie. However, he was also charged with other offenses such as pillaging civilians. This charge was probably true because he did lead raids into northern England.
By the end of August 1305, Wallace was found guilty and drawn and quartered, a death reserved for traitors. Wallace's body parts and head were displayed in different parts of England to make an example against those considering of revolting against the English king.<ref>For more on the capture and execution of William Wallace, see: Ross, D. R. (2005). <i>For Freedom: The Lasts Days of William Wallace</i>. Edinburgh: Luath Press.</ref>
Despite Wallace's death, he is shown as gaining revenge by impregnating the future consort of the king of England, Edward II's wife, Isabella of France. In reality, Isabella would have been no older than 9 years of age at this time and not yet married to Edward II.<ref>For more on Isabella and her life, see: Warner, K. (2016). <i>Isabella of France, The Rebel Queen: The Story of the Queen who Deposed her Husband Edward II.</i> Gloucestershire, England: Amberley Publishing.</ref> She was not even in England at this time.  While Edward II is portrayed as effeminate, historical records do indicate he was possibly gay. But his role in English rule was not significant until after his father's reign. However, because Edward II was a relatively weak king, the Scots did successfully rebel against him.
Robert the Bruce, in many ways, was far more successful than William Wallace. He successfully rebelled against England and Scotland regained its independence under his reign. The Battle of Bannockburn, as suggested by the movie, was a major turning point. Bannockburn was the culmination of years fighting the Scots and English. Nevertheless, as the movie suggests, the Scots did gain their independence after the reign of Edward I.

Navigation menu