"Braveheart" Takes FREEEEDOM With the Facts
Picture a movie made by a British production company, starring an Australian
actor who grew up in Ireland. Now,
imagine this movie is about the American Revolutionary War. In this movie, General Washington orders
General Patton to destroy the advancing Vietnamese troops by using his
specially trained “Space Rangers” and their laser rifles. About halfway through
the movie, a confused Abraham Lincoln is found out to be a traitor, but redeems
himself at the end by leading his flak-jacketed troops across the Potomac to
victory.
"Come at me, Bro!"
Insane hogwash, right? There’s no
way that anyone, irrespective of national origin could possibly confuse a tale
like that with actual history. Don’t be
so sure. You see, there are people out
there who, for having watched the Mel Gibson Oscar-winning film “Braveheart,”
believe that they are experts in the life of William Wallace and in Scottish
history, in general.
Now, full disclosure: I’ve seen “Braveheart”
about a dozen times and have enjoyed it each and every time. Similarly, I have enjoyed “Star Wars” and “Ghostbusters.”
I do not feel an overwhelming need to attribute
any historical significance to either of those movies, and I feel much the same
way about the fictionalized tale of William Wallace. It was fun and full of adventure. It was brilliantly filmed and the acting was
absolutely top-notch. There was a
relatable hero, a perfectly hateful villain and a giant man made out of
marshmallows. (The last one, of course,
relates only to “Ghostbusters”).
Let’s start with Wallace himself.
History records the man to be anywhere from 6 foot 5 inches to a
staggering 7 feet tall. Where common
sense would dictate that a Scotsman from the thirteenth century would probably
not be a viable point-guard for the Boston Celtics and that 7 feet is probably
pushing the limits of credulity, the man was more probably than not very tall,
indeed. Mel Gibson, on the other hand,
is not.
Actual Size Comparison
Now, I am not implying that Mel
Gibson’s character was a tiny weakling, or that he did not look absolutely
smashing in his kilt; far from it. That
does bring up another area where Hollywood has taken a few liberties with
European history, though. Kilts did not
exist in the time of William Wallace.
As previously stated, William Wallace lived during the latter part of
the 13th century. Scotsmen
started wearing Kilts over three centuries later. The kilt, which literally translates from
Scottish into, “to tuck ones clothes up around one’s body,” was a full length
garment, with the upper half serving as a cape or a hood. It was adopted from Norse settlers who wore
similar garments that they called kjalta. This fashion icon was not adopted until the
17th century, so there was no way that William Wallace or any of his
clansmen would have been wearing them.
They wore pants…boring pants and probably sensible shoes, as well. To their credit, however, had the producers
been sticklers for historical accuracy, movie-goers the world over would still
have no idea what Mel Gibson’s knees look like.
So ask yourself: is that a world you want to live in?
Okay. We probably would've eventually figured it out.
On now to that traitorous Robert the Bruce, who, in accordance with the
wishes of his leprosy-ridden father, betrays Wallace and all of Scotland. Here,
I will give you fair warning. If you are
ever at a gathering of Scotsmen and you go into a diatribe of how that nasty
Robert the 17th Bruce was a no good so-and-so, be prepared to be
unceremoniously and violently stomped into a fine paste and made into a haggis.
You see, Robert the Bruce is one of Scotland’s greatest national
heroes. He assumed the throne in 1306
and led his band of “warrior poets” to victory against Edward I. As a matter of fact, the term “Braveheart”
actually refers to Robert the Bruce, whose troops, after his death, literally
carried his heart into battle.
He never betrayed his kinsmen and, though critical of William Wallace’s
early campaigns, he became one of his most outspoken and influential
supporters.
On the other side of the field of battle, we find the evil King Edward
I, or “Edward the Longshanks,” to his buddies.
Portrayed as something of a cross between Darth Vader and the Sheriff of
Nottingham, ol’ Longshanks couldn’t wait to rid Scotland of the men wearing
their futuristic kilts before granting Primae
Noctis to his knights. Primae Noctis
is, of or course, the abominable practice of granting feudal lords the right to
bed peasant women upon their wedding nights.
It is quite understandable that this sort of thing would infuriate the
Scots, causing all sort of violence and prompting the men to paint themselves
blue.
From their new album, "Freeeeeedom!!!"
The problem with this, of course, is that it never happened. The idea of Primae Noctis is a work of
fiction, and has been so since about the time of the 16th century. There’s been a lot of talk of it through the
centuries, but absolutely no evidence to substantiate its’ actual
existence. Oh, and no one in Wallace’s
time ever painted themselves blue, either.
Unlike kilts, that was a fashion trend of several centuries earlier.
Back to King Eddie Longshanks, though, the evil bastard. Well…not so much. Where he was known as the “Hammer of the
Scots,” and he did fight to gain control of the land, he did so only after he was invited in by the Scots themselves. That’s
right, they invited him in to broker a peace and avoid civil war following the
deaths of Scotland’s King Alexander III and of his granddaughter and only known
heir, Margaret, Maid of Norway. His
terms for arbitrating such a peace included being named Lord Paramount of
Scotland, a stipulation that the Scots
agreed to.
Read it? Well, I skimmed it...I'm sure it's fine.
Shortly after naming John Balliol the new king, King Edward thought
better of it, considering King Balliol to be a poor choice and a weak
king. He attempted to remedy this
mistake by attacking Scotland at its border towns and forcing Balliol to
abdicate. Though tyrannical attacks and
all-out warfare were certainly over-reactionary on the part of Longshanks, it
must be said that John Balliol was indeed
a weak king and poor leader, and was known as “Toom Tabard,” or “Empty Coat”
for the duration of his short rule. Upon
realizing this, it is not without merit that the Lord Paramount of Scotland
might seek to remedy the situation. A
situation, remember, that he was
originally asked to fix.
Additionally, King Edward was responsible at home in England for the re-establishment
of the “Magna Carta” and its joining with the decades-old “Forest Charter,” forming
the “Confirmation of Charters” in 1297.
This not only granted rights to the aristocracy, (via the Magna Carta),
and the peasantry, (via the Forest Charter), back in its own time, but is
widely considered the basis of British law and still remains in statute to this
day! What a diabolical villain!
"I shall kill them all. Then, I shall donate the proceeds to fund Plague research!"
Also, upon the death of his wife Eleanor in 1290 in the city of Harby,
King Edward I had her body transported to London for burial. At every one of the twelve spots that his
wife’s body laid during the journey, Edward had a lavish stone cross erected in
her memory. Three of them still exist
today.
Surviving Queen Eleanor Cross
Several more fictionalizations occur throughout the film. For instance, Princess Isabelle of France was
portrayed by Sophie Marceau as a beautiful young woman of a kind and virtuous
nature. In reality, the real princess
was approximately 7 years old at the time of William Wallace. Furthermore, upon becoming an adult, she was
widely considered to be something of a bloodthirsty warrior who, after deposing
her husband, King Edward II, launched another war into Scotland with her son,
Edward III.
In the film, King Edward I dies as Wallace is being executed. King Edward did not die until several years
after Wallace, at the ripe old age of 70.
King Edward II did not marry Queen Isabelle of France until three years
after Wallace’s death.
The film begins in 1280, with the King of Scotland dead and Edward I invading. King Alexander III did not die until 1286 and
Edward’s attempt at conquest did not begin until roughly four years later.
There may or may not, however, have been a giant marshmallow-man at the
Battle of Stirling Bridge. Let’s face it…with
the amount of liberties taken by Hollywood in this and so many other films, it’s
hard to be sure.
