"I shall tell you of William Wallace. Historians from England will say I am a liar, but history is written by those who have hanged heroes."
Mel Gibson's 1995 directorial debut Braveheart is often cited as one of the least accurate historical epics of all time, with an estimated 90% of the movie being pure fiction, and both Gibson himself and writer Randall Wallace have admitted the film was heavily fictionalized for dramatic purposes.
All of the things mentioned below aside, it's worth mentioning that the same historians who are quick to wag their fingers at this film are also quick to point out that the brutality of the battles is well represented, and in some cases understated in the movie, but, of course, if there's anything Mel Gibson unquestionably does well in his films, it's violence.
open/close all folders
Characters
- The film's William Wallace is partly fictional. That is inevitable, because few factual details about the real Wallace survive. Writer Randall Wallace instead relied heavily on a 15th-century romantic poem by the Scottish writer Henry the Minstrel ("Blind Harry").
- The real Wallace was hardly the simple Highlander he's portrayed as, but rather a minor aristocrat from the Lowlands with lands and serfs, and who would therefore not have worn a kilt (note that the film takes place about 300 years before kilts existed, anyway.) Likewise, almost everyone in his army should be Lowlanders as well since the Highlanders were essentially a separate society. (The Highlands spoke Gaelic while the Lowlands spoke Scots, a separate language, derived, like Modern English, from Middle English.) The absence of Andrew de Moray, the man who did rouse the Highlanders and co-commanded with Wallace at Stirling, gives some evidence of a Composite Character.
- One of the few things actually preserved about Wallace's character was his strictness as a disciplinarian... entirely at odds with the "summer camp" atmosphere of his camp in the film.
- The film makes no mention of Wallace's military service in Wales, which would've helped to explain why he's such a good military strategist and fighter beyond just the teachings of his uncle. It would've also given Wallace and Longshanks' rivalry more history, as Wallace served under Edward I during the conquest of Wales.
- Despite being a much bigger Scottish hero than Wallace ever was and the actual owner of the epithet "Brave Heart", Robert the Bruce gets a strange combination of Historical Hero Upgrade and Adaptational Wimp by airbrushing out many of his more nefarious acts and portraying him as essentially an Unwitting Pawn of his scheming father until he has an epiphany. In reality, Bruce was an accomplished plotter in his own right and just as brutal as Longshanks to his enemies.
- In particular, Bruce invited his chief rival John Comyn to peace talks in a church, then murdered him and rampaged through the Great Glen slaughtering Comyn's supporters, for which he was excommunicated by the Pope. This was not only a treacherous move, but a stupid one that further divided the Scots against the English, with the Comyn clan pursuing a blood feud against Bruce over this.
- However, Bruce didn't betray Wallace. Everyone else, sure, but never Wallace, mostly because the two never met and Wallace never backed Bruce's claim to the throne; he preferred freeing John Balliol from English domination.
- Robert Bruce Sr. was neither a leper (a trait attributed to an elderly Robert Jr. by his enemies) nor was he responsible for Wallace's capture, most obviously because he died over a year before it happened. In actuality, Wallace was captured by John de Menteith, a Scottish sheriff loyal to Edward I.
- Edward I of England gets a Historical Villain Upgrade and becomes the Trope Namer for We Have Reserves, whilst in reality his record was pretty mixed.
- Edward is described as a "cruel pagan" in the opening narration. He was a devout Christian, as were all kings of Europe at the time, barring those of tribal areas such as the Baltics. Before he became king he went on one of the final major Crusades.
- While a brutal conqueror and an anti-Semite (in an age of endemic violence and bigotry), Edward didn't oppress his English subjects and was in fact fairly radical in European circles for establishing Parliament as a permanent institution and regularizing the tax and justice systems in a way that made England one of the most progressive kingdoms in Europe and earned him nicknames like "the Lawgiver" and "the English Justinian".
- The film depicts Edward as miserly, scoffing at Isabella for distributing the bribe money refused by Wallace to the peasants afflicted by Wallace's invasion, when in reality Edward himself gave generously to charity as was expected of good Christian kings.
- The portrayal of Edward's court as an unfaltering No Woman's Land is reinforced by the absence of Edward's beloved and well-treated second wife Margaret of France during the film's second half, who in fact seems to have been made a Composite Character with her niece Isabella.
- Edward did not throw any of his son's lovers out of a window. He did disapprove of his son's closeness to Piers Gaveston enough to banish Gaveston, but this was due more to the unseemly favouritism shown by his son than any personal animosity to Gaveston since he sent him off with plenty of notice and a generous salary (historians are still divided over whether Edward II and Gaveston were actually lovers or merely Heterosexual Life-Partners smeared as such by their enemies).
- Edward did not encourage English barons to invoke primae noctis (the supposed right of lords to take the virginity of female subjects on their wedding nights), most obviously because such a custom didn't even exist and would have ranked as a mortal sin in the Church, whose teachings were expected to be followed throughout English society at the time.
- In 2013, the British government announced that they would pay a healthy sum of money to reimburse any family or group that could provide evidence that any of their ancestors were the result of primae noctis as a way to finally put this question to rest. This restitution has yet to be claimed by anybody.
- What is also most glaring is the order Longshanks gives to have archers shoot into the melee, which is questioned by his commander ("But, won't we hit our own men?"). Such orders seem to be quite popular in Hollywood, but in real life were almost nonexistent. The use of mercenaries as temporary fighting forces was quite popular in this era (which is lampshaded with Longshanks attempting to hire the Irish). If word got out that a commander gave orders that intentionally put his own soldiers/mercenaries at risk, he would not be around long, either by friendly fire or his own guards suddenly finding something better to do when an angry mob of survivors showed up. Again, this is an order not recorded as ever being given in any conflict.
- Edward II was not a successful king, but neither was he the prissy little coward the movie portrays. In fact, whatever his sexuality, the historical Edward's physical size, strength, and personal courage were his most oft-noted virtues even among otherwise-exasperated contemporaries. For instance, when the Battle of Bannockburn went against the English, his men had to drag him away to save him from being killed or captured because he wanted to keep fighting. In the film, he's not even present for the battle.
- Though it should be noted that this isn't exactly a case of Gibson making things up as possibly being misinformed, since as mentioned at least some of Edward's contemporaries slandered / believed him to be like this.
- At the very least, Edward II's disgust towards women is excessive for a man who historically fathered five children, including a bastard named Adam FitzRoy.
- The movie plays a bit fast and loose with Edward II's age. It depicts him as being an adult and advising his father on various matters (and being married) at the start of the story. He was actually only 13 when the Battle of Stirling Bridge occurred, and fourteen when the Battle of Falkirk happened. (At least it doesn't show him at either of those battles, though he did begin actively aiding his father in the Wars of Scottish Independence only a couple of years later.)
- His overall personality is also essentially the opposite of the real Edward II. Unlike the film's Upper-Class Twit, the real Edward was a bit of a White Sheep who valued things like hard work and actually communicating with the common people, which most of the English nobility thought was improper for a prince, while at the same time displaying a selfish, tyrannical streak and a penchant for judical theft and murder that belies his weak-willed character in the film.
Historical Events
- The Opening Narration goes: "Scotland, 1280 AD. [...] The king of Scotland had died without a son, and the king of England, a cruel pagan known as Edward the Longshanks, claimed the throne of Scotland for himself. Scotland's nobles fought him and fought each other over the crown. So Longshanks invited them to talks of truce—no weapons, one page only. Among the farmers of that shire was Malcolm Wallace, a commoner with his own lands. He had two sons — John and William."
- In 1280, King Alexander III of Scotland was not only still alive, but so were his two sons who only died in 1281 and 1284 before Alexander III himself finally died in 1286, leaving a granddaughter named Margaret whom the Scottish nobles accepted and appointed regents for until her death in 1290, at which point they asked Edward to preside as a neutral party over a commission that selected John Balliol by the normal rules of primogeniture. War didn't come until Balliol started one in 1296 because he (justly) felt that Edward was being overbearing, but unfortunately for him Edward was one of the best generals ever to sit the English throne and crushed him handily.
- Edward was in no sense a pagan (since there hadn't been any true pagans in Britain since the Viking Age) but rather a devoted Christian who took an active part in the Ninth Crusade prior to his ascension. In fact, by the main timeframe of most of the film, Edward may have viewed the stubborn Scots as a frustrating hindrance to his hopes of returning to the Holy Land.
- As for Wallace's family, they weren't commoners and Malcolm Wallace had three sons in 1280. The one left out was the eldest, also named Malcolm.
- Wallace's attack on Lanark was part of a general uprising against the English all across Scotland, not merely personal revenge for the murder of Wallace's wife. Wallace had already been branded an outlaw by the English for his opposition to English rule before the attack. The sole source for the claim that the murder of Wallace's wife was the motivation for the attack comes from Blind Harry's 1478 poem. There is no actual historical record or evidence that Wallace was ever married.
- The Battle of Stirling Bridge consists of both sides charging wildly across an open field with the titular bridge entirely absent. Besides the Call That a Formation? on both sides (especially the absence of the famous Scottish schiltrons), in real life the bridge played a key role in the battle by bottlenecking the superior English force.note
- The sacking of York was invented for the movie. In reality, Wallace's invasion was more of a big border raid that never got anywhere near York and involved all the usual Rape, Pillage, and Burn (including of a nunnery), which was left out. It's worth noting that Blind Harry was worse, claiming Wallace reached St. Albans and only refrained from attacking London after meeting the Queen.
- The depiction of Wallace's childhood and his comment that victory will bring "what none of us have ever had before: a country of our own" strongly implies Scotland was under English occupation for decades, when in fact Edward I only set his eye on the Scots in 1291 and didn't actually invade until 1296, just one year before the Battle of Stirling Bridge.
- There were no Irish conscripts in the English army at Falkirk, though there were many Welshmen. In fact, the whole concept of "conscripts" is anachronistic, although there were feudal levies.
- Wallace did not go around killing nobles who betrayed him. If he had, his life would have been very short after that. In fact, he spent his time after the loss at Falkirk going to places like France and Rome to gain powerful allies.
- Edward II and Isabella are depicted as marrying at the start of the story, circa 1296. They didn't actually get married until 1308, after Edward I was dead (making the implication that he hoped to impregnate her himself doubly ridiculous). As a result of Edward II already being king when they married, Isabella never held the title Princess of Wales.
- William Wallace was not captured in an ambush set up by the Bruces. He was actually captured after losing a skirmish against Sir John Segrave, who was in charge of finding and capturing Wallace.
- In the film, William Wallace's private time with Isabella leads to the conception of Edward III, which couldn't have been the case since Edward III was born almost 10 years after Wallace died and Isabella herself was only nine years old and still living in France at the time of Wallace's death.note
- In order to create some catharsis given how the film ends, Wallace's death is intercut with Isabella revealing to a dying Edward I that she's bearing Wallace's child and proclaiming, "Your son shall not sit long on the throne, I swear it." In reality, Edward I survived Wallace by two years and his son Edward II then reigned for almost 20 years until Isabella and the barons overthrew him for his own tyrannical behavior. Plus, Isabella herself then became something of a tyrant herself whom her teenage son Edward III had to basically overthrow in order to assume power, whereupon he went straight to beating up the Scots!
- Watching Isabella so distraught over Wallace being hanged, drawn, and quartered becomes somewhat interesting if you know about the historical Isabella's deportment when that sentence was enacted on Hugh Despenser
.
- In the film, the Scots win their independence at the Battle of Bannockburn shortly after Wallace's death when Robert the Bruce changes his mind about submitting to the new King Edward II. In reality, the Bruce did launch his rebellion the year after Wallace's death but he started by murdering his rival and then had to wage an eight year guerrilla war before finally confronting the English army at Bannockburn when they tried to lift his siege of Stirling Castle in 1314.
- In the film, Wallace's last words are a shout of "FREEDOM!" According to chroniclers of the time, his actual last words before his execution were the more prosaic (but still rather badass), "In my life, I never served under an English king!"
- That was also issued before the execution started. There are no recorded statements from during the execution nor were there likely any unrecorded ones, cries of "FREEDOM!" or otherwise, as people being disembowelled alive after being being hung tend to be less than lucid.
Anachronisms
- During Malcolm Wallace's funeral, we see the silhouette of a man playing bagpipes and are told they're "playing outlawed tunes on outlawed pipes." In truth, bagpipes were only ever banned in Scotland twice: in 1560 after the Reformation and again in 1746 after the Battle of Culloden. Moreover, in the late 13th century, bagpipes were actually quite popular in England and certainly weren't viewed as an inherently Scottish instrument until much later.
- The filmmakers took care throughout the film to depict several groups all dressed alike in their representative tartans (the plaid patterns on the kilts), but someone should've told them that the Scots didn't even wear kilts in the 13th century, much less use codified clan tartans (which were a 19th-century development).
- Woad warpaint was possibly an affectation of the southern Britonsnote , which pop history later associated with the Picts, from whom the Scots conquered Scotland around the end of the Roman era—roughly 800 years before the events of the film. Granted, the dumbstruck reactions of even other Scots hints at it being shockingly archaic even In-Universe, but still...
- The crushed velvet that members of royalty sport in the film wouldn't be invented until centuries later, and even the general style of clothing is more suited to the 15th century than the 13th.
- The now-famous "Braveheart claymore" is based on continental European Zweihanders from about two centuries later. There is a longsword traditionally associated with Wallace, but it's uncertain which if any parts of it date to the 13th century, and in any case the one in the film looks nothing like it.
- Historically, Edward I and his court spoke French, not Old English, as a primary language (though from Henry III onwards, English kings learned Old English as a second language). This could be written off as Translation Convention except that Queen Isabella and her lady are shown speaking French. (However, the English court spoke an Anglo-Norman dialect, which was as different from the Parisian French spoken by Isabella as Cockney is from Geordie.) It wouldn't be until Isabella's great-grandchildren, Richard II and Henry IV, that English truly began to surpass French as the royal vernacular in all circumstances (think Geoffrey Chaucer).
- Modern medievalists are positively irate that this film—without exaggeration—single-handedly cemented in the public consciousness that primae noctis or Droit du Seigneur—the supposed right of lords to take the virginity of female subjects—was ever a real thing, despite being thoroughly debunked decades before the film was made.
- The film ends with the implication that Wallace was the true father of King Edward III, who was actually born seven years after his execution. Edward III's mother, Isabella of France, although this could be interpreted just as her lying to stick it to the King. In real life she was only 10 when William Wallace was executed.
Terms
- The use of the term "heavy horse/cavalry" is wholly incorrect. The English cavalry depicted would be considered light horse, at best. Note the lack of barding (armor for horses), full plate armor for the riders, and wooden lances. Considering that the first heavy cavalry forces were fielded by Great Britain makes this especially egregious. Lightly armored riders (the heaviest armor depicted was scale armor) with wooden lances on unarmored horses wouldn't be considered "heavy" by any commander at any time. This makes the line "you brought no heavy horse" (uttered at the Battle of Stirling) very strange, as the Scottish forces on screen were about as heavily armed and armored.
- The word "infantry" wasn't used in the English language before 1570 or so, when it was imported from either French or Spanish.
