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

The film is pretty much pure Hollywood fantasy that gets all the historical details wrong, but that said.... it’s still an incredible, epic, entertaining, and (most importantly of all) an emotionally moving powerhouse drama about personal and spiritual liberation from oppressive tyranny. It also happens to have incredible photography, editing, and staging. Mel Gibson knocked it out the f-cking park with this one.

Goes to show that a movie does not need to be 100% accurate to achieve its goal of imparting the audience with an important message or emotion.

reply

I don't have as high an opinion of the movie as you do. For me, about half the movie makes it worth seeing: It starts weak for the first 25 minutes or so, gets good for the next hour and a half and then inexplicably loses its mojo in the last hour. The problems in the last hour include: the story losing its drive, the eye-rolling betrayal scene; the equally eye-rolling episode where Wallace rides into a noble's bed chamber on a freakin' horse and easily escapes (Why Sure!); and, lastly, the overlong and dull execution sequence wherein the Christ symbolism is laid on too thick.

reply

Interesting. To me the Mornay revenge sequence was one of the most memorable parts of the film. It’s nightmarish and got a good sense of tension. One of the more creative death scenes. The escape is kind of implausible (but not impossible), but that’s sort of missing the point.

I don’t think I could find a scene of a man getting his twig and berries shorn off, or his intestines pulled out like rope to be all that dull either. Lol!

reply

The betrayal scene struck me as eye-rollingly melodramatic. The less said about the horse-riding in the noble's bed chamber sequence the better, but I can live with that scene since this genre is expected to be a little larger-than-life heroic.

You make a good point about the ending; it was just too drawn out for me and the Christ-parallel was laid on overly thick.

Parts of it are very well done though. For instance, McGoohan was great as the arrogant Longshanks; and the defenestration scene was unexpected and superbly executed.

reply

What about the Irish angle inserted into this film?

I remember in the 90s a resurgence in the US of Irish-American pride and culture before Braveheart came out, and when I finally saw it I felt like the Stephen character was fabricated to garner attention from American audiences hungry for more mythic Irish dogma. You stated that the Irish conscripts never flipped to Wallace's side so I assume that means Stephen was a B.S. character

reply

I am from Scotland and it splits people here also! Taking the politics out of it it is a brilliantly made film. The Intensity of the battle scenes is something I think very few have been able to recreate and it’s very good against the odds film that leaves you fired up. Also being Scottish I guess its heightened for me but I suppose I can see the argument against it as it uses the inaccuracies to achieve this! The almost tribal Scots farmers in the kilts and limited armoury against the evil empire of England with the force of the heavy armoured regimented English forces type scenario. I still love it though haha. Of course it would have been interesting if could have been a more historical accurate film. However the way I look at is it’s a gateway to history. It was on a massive stage and if even a slight percentage of the viewing audience then went on to read the actual history then great. If not then people who didn’t know the history still don’t know the history haha. I liked outlaw king which while is still a film based on historical events is still a lot closer but If nobody watches it you could argue Braveheart did more by being less or am I stretching!!! Hahaha

reply

I'm afraid most of the film was an ego trip for Mel Gibson and little else. He was riding high on his fame at the time and wanted to play a wild warrior who killed as many bad guys in the bloodiest way possible, and nailed all the good-looking chicks in the movie.

reply

You see this all the time with movies based on historical events and true stories, adding fictionized elements or changing things for the movie, when they do that people end up thinking the movie is how it actually happened.

reply