History Buffs: Braveheart

hello and welcome history buffs my name is Nick Hodges and I'm excited to give you the review you have all been waiting for Braveheart if there is one movie that can drive a history buff absolutely livid it is this one it's insanely accurate and it pains me to say this because I love this period in history and to see almost all of it stripped away and condensed down to Hollywood fluff is just outrageous and I'm not talking about a few inaccuracies here and there almost every single piece of information provided is completely false which is why I had to make an extra long review to cover up as much as possible unfortunately though I couldn't cover them all so I apologize if I left out anything big so without further ado this is Braveheart I think I may be one of the only people who's not a big fan of this movie to be honest I'm actually puzzled as to why it won five Academy Awards including Best Picture because it's a pretty generic run-of-the-mill action adventure story that we've all seen time and time again I mean we start off with the protagonist who simply wants to lead a quiet life on his farm in peace and harmony insisting to be a reluctant pacifist whilst his country is at the brink of war a game back home they raise crops and God willing a family actually what am I talking about this is a generic run-of-the-mill Mel Gibson movie if you're asking me am I willing to go to war with England well then the answer is most definitely no it is because the next thing that always happens is that the English come in kill his family and thus forced to give take up arms against the English in the name of freedom it literally is a precursor to the patriot even shares some of the same bloody dialogue when I got a chance to kill Englishmen we're honest do I get the opportunity to kill a few redcoats in that case you can forget about this movie even attempting to be accurate here we go again with another case of classic Hollywood making compromises with history to drive this stupid cliche plot he was a man of peace living on a quiet farm in North Dakota till one day all hell broke loose him we need you I'm a man of peace I'm done killing I want to raise a family that's just that Tim they've got your family I cannot be the only one who's getting sick and tired of these over-the-top movies playing fast and loose with historical fact and by fast and loose I mean by totally making stuff up after all it's not enough to stick it to the English man Mel Gibson also had to stick it to the Englishman's wife and yes I have total justification making fun of my romantic subplot because princess Isabella could have had an affair with William Wallace since she was nine years old at the time of his death and was still living in France so unless William Wallace was a teleporting pedophile then I struggled to see how this is possible I mean like seriously this movie so full of inconsistencies there's my eyes what we set in a magical kingdom with dragons and stuff lying around and it probably would have made more sense the question of the historical accuracy of Braveheart is one that that always makes me laugh when we're creating something when we're in the business of storytelling we're in the process of myth making for which the audience the listeners are just as crucial as the speakers they respond to the story in a certain way I wasn't looking to describe facts or numbers or to quantify William Wallace I wanted to capture a spirit and a feeling that I had had when movies had changed my life oh really then why didn't you use that same approach when you wrote and directed We Were Soldiers seriously how come that movie was handled in a respectful and mature way to its historical source material but in Braveheart he wanted to capture a spirit or a feeling or some other such rubbish what's funny to me is that he was totally aware of this when he wrote the script right the beginning of the movie one of the very first lines defense Braveheart from ridicule almost like it's baiting me to take a shot at it historians from England will say I am a liar but history is written by those who have hanged heroes well challenge accepted my friend because I most certainly do I'm gonna give you my reasons why Oh before I leave you out they said I'm only picking on this movie because I'm English just know that my father side of the family are descended from the clan Robertson of inches one of the oldest Highland clans of Scotland so there as you can see here in this and terribly embarrassing photograph myself when I was 14 I am wearing my clans tartan now I certainly take my Scottish roots very seriously but you'd have to be a special kind of stupid if you think this movie does as well so the movie begins in 1280 after the death of the Scottish King Alexander the third and no way hold on that that doesn't sound right sorry guys let me just look this up really quickly King Alexander rain from the 6th of July 12 39 to the 19th of March 12 86 are you kidding me they couldn't even get the sodding dates right you know for a movie that's supposed to celebrate Scottish history they're severely lacking any credibility so far what excuse could they possibly have for cocking up this early in the movie historians from England will say I am a liar oh shut up in 1286 the future of the kingdom of Scotland became uncertain with the King Alexander the thirds died in a horse riding accident the problem was that he died without leaving any male heirs and things only became worse when his granddaughter Margaret Norway died in 1219 since he was the last of Alexander's heir stiff competition arose between the Scottish Nobles on who would be the next king of Scotland and 14 of them made their claim to the throne when things started look like they might escalate into a civil war the Scots made a terrible mistake asking the English King Edward the first to mediate now he had been watching the situation developing in Scotland like a hawk looking for any signs of weakness nobles Nobles are the key to the door Oscar now in the movie King Edward is portrayed as a brutal man and that's actually a fair depiction I mean he was a conqueror he had Fortin an English Civil War pin on crusade and military campaigns in Wales and France and here came along this perfect opportunity to expand his kingdom with Scotland so King Edward graciously accepted this request to arbitrate and out of the two most popular claimants to the crown which were Robert the Bruce and John Balliol John Bailey OBE was chosen as the new King of Scotland but under one condition that he recognized King Edward and swear fealty to him as Lord paramount the feudal superior of the Scottish realm reluctantly the Scots accepted in 1292 but it wasn't long before they regretted that decision because King Edward started to take advantage by demanding homage to have legal authority over their King and by heavily taxing them and demanding the Scots provide military service for England's war with France to the Scottish this was unacceptable and they pressure King John Balliol to instead make an alliance with France the Scots then launched a preemptive strike and invaded England attacking Carlisle Castle on the 12th of March 1296 unsuccessfully I might add in response King Edward invaded Scotland and made an example of the people of barrack upon tweed for the Scots attack on Carlisle he had the town sacked and slaughtered around 8,000 people almost the entire town's population Edward's army pushed further into Scotland taking Dunbar Edinburgh and finally stirred in castle King John was eventually captured stripped of his titles and was imprisoned in the Tower of London King Edward that installed English viceroys to rule Scotland and just over a year later William Wallace's rebellion began in 1297 now you might be asking yourself hey wait a minute that doesn't make sense because in the movie it's implied that the English had occupied Scotland for decades now is our chance now if we join we can win if we win well then we'll have what none of us have ever had before a country of our own well either this is some sloppy writing or William Wallace's being melodramatic I like to think it's the former since I wouldn't want to imagine William Wallace the hero of Scotland being too stupid to tell the difference between 2 years and 2 decades now not a lot is known about William Wallace I can honestly say that he has been one of the hardest historical figures I researched so far it's almost like he is the Scottish version of Robin Hood since he's been built up over the centuries as a mythical figure and this film certainly doesn't give us an idea of who William Wallace really was this because the story was largely based off of a poem called the Wallace written by a man named blind Harry in 1470 he wrote about William Wallace 165 years after his execution the problem is though is that this was not written to be a historical record but in order to intentionally romanticize William Wallace to make him larger than life literally and figuratively even describing William Wallace to be a giant owe you Wallace is seven feet tall yes a man kills men was 100 and if you will here he consumed the English with fireballs from his eyes involved some lightning from his ass even though the movie shrugs this off you have to know that blind Harry really did describe William Wallace to be seven feet tall and that's not the only inaccurate exaggeration he made and this was because blind Harry's poem is written as a propaganda piece and was commissioned by the Scottish Nobles at the time disturbed conflict between England and Scotland in order to stop the Scottish King James the third for making peace with England so combine that with Randall Wallace Braveheart scriptwriter and you have a film based on more fantasy than truth so let's start off with who William Wallace really was in the movies portrayed as a commoner or a farmer someone who's basically dirt poor and lives off the land however he was actually the son of a minor nobleman called Alan Wallace who never spent a day in his life doing farm work or any other type of manual labour more than likely he would have spent his childhood training to be a man at arms and received military training these skills would prove to be extremely important even before the Scottish war for independence records show that he was a younger son and in those days the eldest son will inherit the father's estate so William Wallace's career options would have been very limited he could either join the church or he could go off and serve in the army and there was a strong theory that he might have served as a mercenary in King Edward's war in Wales personal steel had an archers insignia so he might have been an archer now again this is only conjecture but this military experience does help explain how Wallis was able to lead a successful resistance movement against the English a lot more than just having a few sword fighting lessons with his uncle learn to use this little teacher to use this another interesting thing to know by William Wallace is that he may also have been an outlaw before the war ever started in 1296 there is a record of him and an English soldier stealing a keg of beer from some lady's house typical adage behavior I know but I wanted to point out the difference between the real Wallis and the infallible version we see in the movie but it is faster you can see how he goes from being a common thief to the savior of Scotland in just a year and this brings us to the rebellion Atlantic in the movie William Wallace secretly marries a peasant girl coumarin and the reason for this is to avoid the English enforcing a medieval custom called prima nocta come to claim the rights of prima nocta as Lord of these lands I will bless this marriage by taking the bride into my bed on the first night of her Union first of all I just want to let you know that prima nocta never really existed at least there is no evidence of the English ever enforcing this more than likely is just a medieval myth kind of like the chastity belt may marry a chastity belt it's in everline so the next thing that happens that the English captain Wallace's wife marooned for assaulting the King soldiers and the sheriff of landok slits her throat to provoke William Wallace to attack now this gets a little complicated but I'll try to keep as simple as possible in blind Harry's poem it is mentioned that William Wallace's wife was called Marian braids foot and not Marin like it is in the movie and in death by the sheriff William de hessel rig was what sparked William Wallace's uprising in the first place and motivated him to fight now it is true that this uprising really did take place and Wallace along with his supporters attacked the English garrison and killed the sheriff however the reason why it is actually a bit of a mystery since Marian Bradford never existed and Wallace never had a wife in the first edition of blind Harry's poem there is no mention of Mary and Bradford but she somehow appears in the later edition of the Wallace written a hundred years later the reason for this was because Anne rest aquatic family the Bailey's of lamington paid someone to include Marion brain foot into the poem in order for them to claim to be her descendants this was quite common practice at the time and it's this version that seems to have inspired Braveheart so if there was no Marion braids foot then why did William Wallace attack the English garrison like I said no one really knows for sure but there are a few theories one being that Wallace was actually under orders from another man called Richard of Lundy who organized the attack another being there may have been over a land dispute when the English confiscated the Wallace's family's land and by doing so would effectively make them outlaws if that's the case that I'm sure that William Wallace felt like he had nothing left to lose versus country and now his family were under threat from English oppression so after his attack on LAN ik Scots began to flock to him and hope then now the time had finally come to fight for their freedom the Angus how you raising an army your stomach through the normals Raleigh Road up the boost but most of the others will not commit the battle but wider spread and the Highlanders are coming down on their own high and low challenges and bogies are you ready for a war so now we're on to the Battle of Stirling all right cool so let's get the obvious stuff out of the way before we tackle what's really wrong with this battle I just want to let you know Scott to the 13th century didn't wear blue face paint this is obviously borrowed from a fierce tribe called the pict who lived in Scotland and fought the Romans over a thousand years before Stirling when they paint their faces in the blue world it is more than just a decoration it is a sacred right to the pigs it means they'd sooner die than fail I seriously doubt that the heavily Catholic Scots would want to affiliate themselves to their pagan ancestors in any way another thing I obviously have to mention are the kilts Scot twinbee wearing kilts and sterling or for that matter anywhere until the 17th century they would actually be wearing very similar clothing and armor to their English counterparts but here they are wearing kilts with little to no armor against an English army fully clad in armor and by some miracle they winds how they're practically wearing nothing and some of them aren't even carrying real weapons like honestly what is that is that a stick look mate I appreciate your enthusiasm but I don't think you're taking this very seriously all right what I'm not dying for these possums let's go glad to see this guy has some common sense at least away were wait known enough well Gibson has to make a speech first this should be good then they may take our wife but they'll never take so despite having no armor being outnumbered and being poorly ill-equipped is through the power of freedom for the Scots win the day us if only Native Americans believed in freedom then maybe they would have won I guess they didn't believe in freedom hard enough let me look at this there is no tact whatsoever with this battle the Scots in the English assemble on an open field and they simply smash into each other and eventually somehow the Scots win ok ok so enough of that rubbish how did the Scots really win well the biggest inaccuracy of yet to mention is that the Battle of Stirling is actually called the Battle of Stirling Bridge and yet there is no bridge to be found even though this bridge played an extremely important part in winning this battle you see unlike in the movie the Scots actually use clever tactics instead of clever speeches and they chose to fight in Stirling because of its strategic importance if you wanted to conquer the highlands and he had to cross Stirling Bridge which was made of wood and extremely narrow only wide enough to allow the English to cross two-by-two on September the 11th 1297 an English army of 10,000 men began the excruciating ly slow process of crossing the bridge unaware the six thousand Scots hid in the woods to the north they waited until 1/3 of the army across the bridge before attacking catching the English completely by surprise the Knights and their heavy Armour were hemmed in and had no freedom of movement on the slippery mud the Scots were able to pull them off their horses and cut them to pieces William Wallace's men were also able to take control of the bridge blocking off access for escape and reinforcements the English having nowhere to go attempted to swim across the river but due to their heavy armor many of them drowned the battle was over in an hour and William Wallace and the Scottish rebels were victorious after the Battle of Stirling the movie shows William Wallace being knighted and declared guardian of Scotland it's the facto leader second only to the king then he declares his next move to win his country independence we have beaten English but they'll come back because you won't stand together what will you do I will invade England and defeat the English on their own ground in reality he was knighted and became guardian only after his invasion of England and I also have to mention that during his invasion he never got anywhere close to York the reason for this is because it was hundreds of miles away from Scotland and without steady supplies and professional siege equipment there would have been no chance for him to take the city so instead he began a pillaging and burning campaign by hitting English towns just south of the Scottish border eventually king edward returned from his campaign in flanders to deal with william wallace personally leading an army of 12,000 men and 2,000 mounted knights against Wallace's army of 8,000 men and only a few hundred nobles as their cavalry oh by the way I just want to quickly point out before I go into the actual battle there was no incident with the Irish conscripts shake hands and swap sides of the Scots I can think of no other reason of this being included in the film other than the filmmakers wanting to give the English the finger so anyway during the English heavy cavalry Wallace had his men adopt a new formation called a shelter in his pikemen were arranged two to four giant circles for their long pikes extended outwards bristling like a hedgehog if any cavalry were to charge them this is what would happen for a while this tactic worked enforcing the English Knights to keep the distance but at some point in the battle the Scottish Nobles fled leaving William Wallace and his men to their face now in the movie this is portrayed to be a sinister betrayal involving a bride from King Edward but more than likely they simply saw this battle as unwinnable I mean there were only two to three hundred mounted Nobles facing against two thousand English Knights so they probably just didn't see the point in fighting for a lost cause hey I'm all about noble death pointless noble death on the other hand yep I'm sure they saw the same way too anyway so once the Scottish Nobles ran away that's when King Edward unleashed his new secret weapon the longbow with Wallace's Shelton's exposed and vulnerable that our cavalry supports the English archers were able to move up to almost point-blank range and unleashed a hail of arrows decimating the Scots the childrens eventually collapsed and as the Scots fled the English heavy cavalry charged in and cut them down foul Kirk was a total defeat and the Scottish for wiped out and one last thing to mention was that as William Wallace fled the battle there was no big reveal of Robert de Bru's portraying William Wallace since he wasn't even at the battle in fairness though to the movie Robert the Bruce was known to swap sides but he never betrayed William Wallace directly because if he had then why would William Wallace resign his guardian of Scotland in September 1298 in favor of Robert the Bruce taking his place so the next thing that happens in the movies we see Wallace go on a killing spree taking revenge of the Scottish Nobles who have betrayed him in foul Kirk and I think it's pretty obvious by this point that never actually happened either because William Wallace had more important things on his mind like the liberation of his country rather than taking some petty revenge that doesn't solve anything so instead William Wallace leaves Scotland on a diplomatic mission to France to meet King Philip to ask for French support this goes on for years but ultimately proves fruitless in the end in 1304 Wallace returns to Scotland to continue the fight until he is finally captured by the English and brought to London in 1305 you stand and taint of high treason against whom against your king have you anything to say in my whole life did I swear allegiance to him it metal's not he is your king shortly after William Wallace was found guilty and was sentenced to death was quite remarkable those that this is the part of the movie they actually toned down how horrific his execution really was you said that the guy who would later direct one of the most horrific torture movies of all time would jump at this opportunity so instead I'll tell you but be warned this is pretty graphic first he was dragged naked through the streets at the heels of a horse then they hung him almost to the point of death before being released then they sliced off his genitals and cut into his belly and pulled out his entrails before finally beheading him when they cut off his arms and legs and each limb was displayed in Newcastle Barrack standing and Perth his head was stuck on a pike in London Bridge so with all this being done to him do you really think he was at all capable to be able to shout this stupid line I kind of doubted over all that have to say that Braveheart does a terrible job at betraying Scottish history and I personally feel that his countless inaccuracies actually cheapen what William Wallace really did in my opinion the real man and his great deeds are far more interesting than the infallible Jesus figure that's presented on screen and it bums me out to think that there are some people who will walk away from this movie thinking that all of this actually happened well that about wraps it up my name is Nick Hodges and thanks for watching history buffs and remember if you like the show help the channel grow don't forget to hit that like and subscribe button and let me know in the comments section what you thought about Braveheart and of course what historical movie shall I review next in the meantime check out the history bus Twitter and Facebook pages for new updates until then have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

Channel: undefined

Views: 2,934,440

Rating: 4.6838808 out of 5

Keywords: Braveheart, Historical Accuracy, Historical Innacuracies, History Buffs, William Wallace, Blind Harry, Scottish War for Independence, Battle of Stirling Bridge, Historical Innacuracy

Id: ojBwASARAzo

Length: 24min 43sec (1483 seconds)

Published: Wed Dec 23 2015

Reddit Comments

[u/kuwhite]

Trouble with Scotland is that it's full of Scots.