Braveheart is a brilliant film, it's just not historically accurate for the most part. Braveheart is more fiction than fact. So, let us look at ten things which Braveheart gets wrong about the time, events and era!
10 Historical inaccuracies of Braveheart 10. Jus primea noctus Jus primea noctus is the latin for the legal right of the nobility to have sex with woman of lesser status on their wedding night. In Braveheart there is a scene were a young Scottish couple are just married, they are outside having a party, were it is interrupted by English guards who take the new bride, declaring jus primea noctus. The film indicates that King Edward Longshanks wanted to ''breed them out'' (the Scots, that is) with forcing new Scottish brides to have sex with English soldiers. Not only does Longshanks, in the film, not realise that it wouldn't ''breed them out'', because if the bride did have a child, that child would be half-Scots, but, the film just makes the plot up. There is no evidence that jus primea noctus was ever in-forced throughout mediaeval Europe, and, there is certainly no evidence that Longshanks had a policy to breed out the Scots with jus primea noctus.
Source: http://www.fibri.de/jus/arthbes.htm
9. Tartan and kilts In the film Braveheart, all of the men wear belted plaids (tartan kilts), but, unless William Wallace, his men, and the Scottish nobilty were time travellers, then they would not have known, seen, or even worn these clothing garments. As they didn't exist until the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries. Like in England, Scottish men dressed according to their social status. Men born of Scottish nobility, and high class, would have wore the same, if not similar to what those of the same social standing wore in England. Neither men, nor women wore tartan in medieval Scotland, it did not exist. Those in Scotland wore similar clothing to what other European countries wore, and their clothing would have been based on their status, and wealth. Source: http://medievalscotland.org/clothing/scotmen.shtml 8. His wife William Wallace was married, but not to Murron, to Marian. His wifes name was Marion Braidfute. Mel Gibson stated that he wanted to change the name of Marian to Murron, because he did not want to people to be confused that it was Robin Hoods wife Maid Marian. Yet Maid Marian wasn't made up until the 15th century, but, ok. There is some historical accuracies though with Wallace's wife in the film. He and her did marry, and, it was in secret. She was murdered by an English nobleman called Sir William Heslerig – to whom later Wallace murdered in revenge. Some scholars though debate whether Wallace did at all married, and some claim that Marion Braidfute didn't exist, as there is little to no evidence for her existence. Source: http://medievalscotland.org/clothing/scotmen.shtml 7. Wallace and Bruce In the film William Wallace and Robert the Bruce are allies, they meet, and Wallace is part of the noble meetings, in reality, none of these things were a reality. For one, Wallace was outlawed (as seen in number 6). Robert the Bruce is known to have supported William Wallace's campaign for independence, however, there is no evidence that the two men ever met. Not only that, there is no evidence that Bruce betrayed Wallace by siding with the English, and fighting with them to defeat Wallace, and his troops, it's totally made up. Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/bruce_robert_the.shtml 6. Not a commoner In the film, William Wallace is seen a man of the people, a commoner, a son of a poor farmer, in reality, William Wallace was of noble birth. We do not know about William Wallace's early years, there is no historical sources to say what his life was like as a child, and, there are also hug parts of his life which are not documented. What we do know about his early life is that he was born into a wealthy, and high class family; his ancestor Richard Wallace was a member of the early House of Stuart – the last Scottish royal family. Wallace also had an education, he was educated in latin; which provides further evidence that he was a man of wealth and privilege. Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/wallace_william.shtml http://yesterday.uktv.co.uk/history/historical-figures/article/william-wallace/ 5. Princess Isabella of France Nearly everything about Princess Isabella of France, and, her life in William Wallace's lifetime is wildly inaccurate. In the film, William and Isabella meet. They then have a brief relationship, and fall in love. None of this ever happened, and is totally made up. At the time of William Wallace's fight for independence, and even his death, Isabella in the time frame was not born – to around 4 to 6 years old. Therefore, Isabella would have been a child, and she wouldn't even have met Wallace. Wallace did go to France for help from the French, but everything else in those scenes is totally fiction. Nothing about Princess Isabella in the film is accurate. She wasn't married to Edward while Wallace was alive, it was three years after Wallace's death that she and Edward married. 4. Wallace's family The film sees William Wallace's dad killed when he was a child, and, that Wallace was adopted by his uncle Argyle. This is made up. For one, Argyle is a completely made up character, there is no evidence that Wallace had an Uncle Argyle. It is thought that Wallace did have two uncles who were priests who taught him latin, but, they were not name Argyle, and there is no evidence that they adopted Wallace. On the other hand, William Wallace's father is called Malcom Wallace. Sir Malcom Wallace. Although, some historians state that he is Alan Wallace, as there is an Alan Wallace in the Ragroll that William refused to sign. Whichever of the two men were William Wallace's father, there is little known about them, other than they served in the royal household of King David, and were a 'Sir'. They also likely were alive when Wallace was fighting his campaign to defeat the English, and claim independence. We know that William Wallace had two brothers, but we do not know very much about his brothers, or his mother. Source: http://wallace.scran.ac.uk/man_and_myth/ 3. Wallace's betrayal The film of Braveheart gets right that William Wallace was defeated at the Battle of Falkirk, and that it was his final defeat, which eventually led to his betrayal. What the film gets wrong though is the betrayal of William Wallace. For one thing, Wallace was not betrayed, and captured in Edinburgh, he was betrayed and captured just outside Glasgow, in Robroyston. And, it wasn't the senior Bruce which betrayed Wallace, it was a Scottish nobel man called John De Menteith, who was loyal to King Edward, who captured Wallace. Subsequently much of Wallace's time in captivity before his death was a lie in the film too. As we know now, Wallace did not meet, or even know Princess Isabella, so, he never met her in the dungeons, and, he also therefore, did not take any potion which he spat out later, to releve any pain he would have endured under torture. Also, we should add, that Isabella wasn't pregnant with Wallace's child. The method of Wallace's execution in the film was right, he was hung, drawn, and quartered. But, Wallace did not say 'freeeeeedom!', there is no official document that he ever said that. There is evidence however that he claimed allegiance, and support for John Balliol, Wallace's 'offical king'. Given that there is no evidence that Hamish or Irish Stephen existed, they wouldn't have been onlooking Wallace's execution. 2. Wallace never sacked York One of the most famous scenes in Braveheart is when Wallace invades Northern England, which is specifically York in the film, and, he sacks York. Although William Wallace did invade Northern England, he did not sack York, and, he did not even gain York, or even get close to doing so, it's a total myth of the film. Wallace did not even make his way to York, he went to other cities, and counties in England. And, he didn't so much 'capture' them, he more like wreck revenge, and turned a few tables over. Ok, it was more than a few tables, but, his invasion over Northern England wasn't really an invasion, as, it was a blip. It was like a riot, which died down pretty quickly. There is no evidence that Wallace and his army captured any land, city, or county in Northern England, quite the contrary, it is documented that the assault on Northern England by Wallace was defeated quickly, and easily, and the English chased him and his army back to Scotland. Source: http://www.englandsnortheast.co.uk/Bruce.html 1. Hero? Freedom fighter? William Wallace and hero seem to go hand in hand, and, Braveheart portrays William Wallace in that light, however, is that who William Wallace really was, was he a hero, and a freedom fighter? Wallace's invasion of Northern England shows that he was just as brutal as those he was fighting against. Wallace murder innocent people; even just for opposing him. Which shows that he had it in him to be just as tyrannical, cruel, and vicious as the Hammer of the Scots, Longshanks. William Wallace may have been fighting oppression, but, he acted the same way towards innocents in England, as Longshanks did to innocent Scots. Not only that, the 'Hammer of the Scots' title given to Longshanks seems as if Longshanks was just a persecutor of the Scots, he wasn't, long before Longshanks invaded Scotland he was busy with Wales. Braveheart makes it seems as if Edward I has a racist agenda against Scottish people, more to the point, evidence points to the fact that he was ambitious, and was set out to conquer as much land as he could. Wallace, in many respects acted with the same ambition, and conquering mindset. It wasn't so much a battle of countries, or even races, but a battle to fight out who secured the Scottish crown.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
April 2023
Categories
All
← Resize me
|