TOP 5 BRAVEHEART HISTORICAL MISTAKES

Mel Gibson’s Braveheart is one of the movies with most historical inaccuracies. The story about Wiliam Wallace, a Scottish national hero, is changed for better dramatisation so the movie has a little connection with the real-life hero. It would be hard to write down all inaccuracies but here are Top 5 Braveheart Historical Mistakes.

William Wallace’s origins

Wallace is shown as a peasant whose family was killed early on so his uncle took him to Europe to study. Truth is that Wallace was born into a wealthier family, a landowner family. He was born as the second child and was probably sent to Europe to study for a priest because the old laws in which the entire inheritance fell into the hands of the eldest son. His father was a landholder who was probably a knight, and his mother was probably a knight’s daughter. Family background affected on his political program; his aim was to restore the throne of the dethroned King of Scotland John Balliol, who was a prisoner of the English King Edward I of England, aka Edward Longshanks and the Hammer of the Scots.

Kilts

Is there any other way to show medieval Scots other than with kilts? Of course, there is a way because kilts were used 500 years later, and there is no place for them in 13. century. Gibson could make Braveheart without kilts however who could then separate Scotts from English troops whose clothes are also out of time.

Woad (facepaint)

During the Roman time, northern inhabitants of Britain came to be known as Picts (Picti), meaning “painted ones” in Latin. Gibson used that in the movie although that is an anachronism from the period 1000 years before the action of the film takes place. It would be interesting to know whether out of time paint on the faces helped the gain The Academy Award for Best Makeup. With his battle half-smurf face, Gibson Wallace through whole movie whore three-day beard like real William Wallace had time to shave every few days and look like a sissy among other Scotts.

Princess that he never met

What would the movie be like without happy end? Gibson couldn’t make a happy end with happily ever after surviving Wallace so he used future wife of English prince end put some Scottish on English throne. Problem is that Princess Isabella was 10 years old and lived in France at the time of Wallace’s death.

Battle tactics

Battle of Stirling Bridge has no bridge in sight only a lousy tactic. A stunning victory of tactical deception and one bridge replaced the tactics in the open field and the use of tactical wits. Wallace’s army was portrayed as a bunch of peasants, although in reality, it was well organised and disciplined army. That is made probably because an ambush of experience army is not so cinematic as open field victory of an underdog peasants.