the nobles as being unreliable which is true but there is no inclusion of the nobles who fought with Wallace at the start and remained steadfast to the end. Much of Wallace’s early life in the film was purely for story telling purposes though there was some truth. After the death of Wallace’s farther his uncle “Argyle” looked after him. Wallace studied to become a priest with one of his uncles, as it was usually the case with the third born male into a family as he would get none of the land which his farther owned, it would go to the eldest born son. There he learned to speak Latin and with his other half-blind uncle taught him how to master a blade. A mixture of these two people possibly made up the character known as “Argyle.” There was also some truth about Wallace’s film love “Murron.” She was in fact called “Marion” and due to Wallace being an outlaw she was killed, unlike the film where Wallace became an outlaw after her death and then Wallace ripped apart the English garrison like the film. These basic facts about Wallace’s early life, has become the basis to which Gibson modified the early story. Gibson used this chance to build up Wallace’s character by making him a likeable hero fighting for a just cause, incorporating in part of a love tail to round off his character and to draw in a wider audience. As without it the story would only appeal to a minority of bloodlust die-hards.
The battle of Stirling Bridge ironically in the film they left out the bridge. This battle came about because of the problems Wallace’s rebellion caused the English. In the film Wallace’s rag tag bunch of Scottish patriots were against the daunting task of defeating a much larger English force. The battle begins when the Scottish
army “moon” their English counterparts before the oncoming barrage of arrows. The “mooning” incident became one of the trademarks and the most clichéd scene in the film, made great viewing but probably never took place. The film indicates that after the Scottish army “mooned” they protected themselves with “wooden shields” the film makers have obviously overlooked that the English arrows used at the time could pierce a knights shield, his mail and skewer him to his hoarse. Gibson turned the battle of Stirling Bridge into a romantic epic battle where Scottish pride and passion beat the enemy over all odds. Though passion and pride played pivotal roles, in real life that is not enough. Only 1 of the 2 important factors that ultimately won the battles are mentioned. The main advantage other than numerical was that the English possessed a great number of cavalry units, as most of the Scots were on foot Wallace came up with a tactic to counter the treat, called “skilltrons.” These were large divisions of men with pikes or spears this was included but only to a very basic extent. The other factor that greatly influenced the battle was “the bridge” which had been carelessly lost in the making of the film. The English army though vast had trouble crossing the bridge from Scottish defenders; this concentrated their army to close combat in one area and prevented the numerical advantage from telling as they could manoeuvre and outflank the Scots on an open field.
The after math of the battle began again to focus on the clash between the “commoners” and the “nobles” and leads to Gibson’s “Braveheart” to besmirch the character and achievements of “Robert Bruce” and to accuse his farther who was on a crusade in Palestine, of base treachery. At the battle of Falkirk many of the nobles betray Wallace including “Robert Bruce” who fights against Wallace but fiction “Robert Bruce” was actually working with Wallace, 50 mile
south-west fighting the English at Ayr. The film also suggests that “the Bruce’s” again betrayed Wallace and had him captured but they had no connection to the capture.
The film up to a point kept to the basic and I mean the basic story, but the next incident would comically and untruthfully change history and devalue the monarchy for centuries to come. Gibson’s Wallace apparently fathered the future kings of England as the film depicts that Wallace had an illegitimate baby with the queen of England (wife to Edward II). Apart from any “lady of quality” being allowed such freedom, she could not have been older than 10 when Wallace was judicially murdered and her son Edward III was born 7years later
Gibson’s Braveheart is in my opinion an epic struggle for freedom and a great film some have said “Braveheart is less about Scotland of 700 years ago and more about western civilisation today?” In an interview before the production of the film Gibson stated “the film would be authentic but had to make compromises for storytelling purposes.” Which was understandable, to fit eight years into 2 hrs and to reach a wide target audience but Gibson can’t be forgiven for changing history and in that case Gibson Butchered Scottish history like the English butchered Wallace, whilst creating a cinematic masterpiece which will live an age.
