Changes

Jump to: navigation, search

How historically accurate is Braveheart

151 bytes removed, 16:16, 12 September 2019
no edit summary
<i>This article contains spoilers.</i>
Braveheart was a popular movie released in 1995 that won 5 Oscars and featured Mel Gibson as William Wallace. Wallace was a Scottish knight who became a hero in the Scottish rebellions against the English in the late 13th and early 14th century. The movie helped to inspire Scottish national pride while also, to some, represent an early, Medieval warrior who fought for freedom for himself and his people.  While much of the story depicted did occur, including the English occupation of Scotland during the time of Edward I, king of England, the depiction of the revolt against the English and other events do not correspond well to historical accounts.
__NOTOC__
====Early Years of William Wallace====In the movie, William Wallace is suggested to have traveled in Europe during the early years of Edward I's occupation of Scotland. However, little is known about Wallace's early years. First, it is assumed Wallace came from a noble family; two villages are often claimed as his birth places birthplaces (Elderslie and Ellerslie), both on the western part of Scotland.<ref>For more on Wallace's early development years before he revolted against the English, see: Cushing, H. (2010). <i>The life of Sir William Osler.</i> [Vol. 1]: [...] (Nachdr. der Orig.-Ausg., Oxford. Hamburg: Severus Verl.</ref> We do know that Wallace was an experienced swordsman and knight, which indicates he may have fought in wars prior to his own rebellion and participation in the wars against the English. In fact, one possibility is he fought with king Edward I as a mercenary during that king's wars against the Welsh. That may have been the most feasible path for him to have gained fighting experience and possibly learn about English war tactics.<ref>For more on William Wallace the knight, see: Brown, C. (2005). <i>William Wallace: The True Story of Braveheart.</i> Stroud: Tempus.</ref>
We do know that Wallace was an experienced swordsman and knight, which indicates he may have fought in wars prior to his own rebellion and participation in the wars against the English. In fact, one possibility is he fought with King Edward I as a mercenary during that king's wars against the Welsh. That may have been the most feasible path for him to have gained fighting experience and possibly learn about English war tactics.<ref>For more on William Wallace the knight, see: Brown, C. (2005). <i>William Wallace: The True Story of Braveheart.</i> Stroud: Tempus.</ref> ====Revolt Against the English====
In the movie, William Wallace began fighting against the English after the death of his wife in 1297, who according tot he movie was killed by the English. In fact, no records exist of William Wallace having ever been married. However, a later poem did mention he had a wife that was killed and it led him to seek revenge. More likely, Wallace was either ambitious to break English authority or resented English occupation of his ancestral lands. This may have been why he became one of the leading early Scottish rebels. Braveheart also suggests that Wallace's actions in response to his wife's death triggered to a wider rebellion against the English.
After a period where a large English army then gathered to invade Scotland, where the Scots were mostly content with raiding these forces, a pitched battle finally occurred at the Battle of Falkirk on July 22, 1298. Edward saw his chance their as the Scots willingly gave him battle rather than continue their raiding of English forces. This time, and similar to the movie, the Scots were decimated by English longbowmen.<ref>For more on the Battle of Falkirk, see: Henty, G. A. (2002). <i>In Freedom’s Cause: A Story of Wallace and Bruce.</i> Mineola, N.Y: Dover.</ref> However, it is very unlikely that Robert the Bruce, future king of Scotland and leader of the Scottish revolt, betrayed Wallace, as suggested in the movie. In fact, the movie suggests rather than Wallace's failure, it was a lack of Scottish support that cost him the battle. More likely, the main failure of the battle may have been poor planning on the part of Wallace, who may have done better by simply harassing the English forces from a distance rather than face a far larger enemy in open combat. After the battle, he may have been so humiliated that he willing resigned his role as guarding of Scotland or was stripped of this title.
==Death of ==How did William Wallacedie?====
[[File:Daniel Maclise, R.A. - The Trial of Sir William Wallace.jpeg|thumbnail|300px|left|Trial of William Wallace.]]
After the defeat at Falkirk, Wallace may have left for France or even Rome for a period of time. It is possible he was seeking assistance from the French and Pope for the Scottish cause. This is likely since there were wars between the French and English at this time and Wallace would have tried to appeal to a willing English enemy if he could. Sometime around 1304, Wallace likely returned to England and continued to raid parts of English occupied Scotland.<ref>For events after the Battle of Falkirk in Wallace's life, see: Hamilton, J. S. (2010). <i>The Plantagenets: History of a Dynasty</i>. London ; New York: Continuum, pg. 79.</ref>  The movie depicts an aging Edward I as being tormented by William Wallace. The attacks were shown as successful skirmishes in most cases, but it is likely these attacks were either negligible, failures, or were insignificant to affect . They did not have a meaningful impact on the English presence in Scotland. More likely, Edward I probably most likely did not consider Wallace a major threat at this point and , because Wallace was more in a desperate state trying struggling to raise a an army after the disaster at Falkirk.  Additionally, he probably had a weakened position in Scotland. Wallace was betrayed, as suggested in the movie, by a Scottish noble (John de Menteith) who was loyal to Edward in 1305. Wallace was captured and soon put on trial for treason at Westminster Palace. At the trial, he did seem to say that he was not guilty of treason because he never claimed loyalty to the English crown. This was depicted in the movie. However, he was also charged with other offenses such as pillaging civilians. This charge was probably true because he did lead raids into northern England.  By the end of August 1305, Wallace was found guilty and drawn and quartered, a death reserved for traitors. Wallace's body parts and head were displayed in different parts of England to make an example against those considering of revolting against the English king.<ref>For more on the capture and execution of William Wallace, see: Ross, D. R. (2005). <i>For Freedom: The Lasts Days of William Wallace</i>. Edinburgh: Luath Press.</ref>
AdditionallyDespite Wallace's death, he probably had a weakened position in Scotland. Wallace was betrayed, is shown as suggested in the movie, gaining revenge by a Scottish noble (John de Menteith) who was loyal to Edward in 1305. Wallace was captured and soon put on trail for treason at Westminster Palace. At impregnating the trial, he did seem to say that he was not guilty future consort of treason, the charge he was tried withking of England, because he never claimed loyalty to the English crownEdward II's wife, as depicted in the movieIsabella of France. HoweverIn reality, he was also charged with other offenses. Among the charges brought against him were those related to his pillaging Isabella would have been no older than 9 years of civilians, which was probably age at least partially true, during his raids in the north of England. By the end of August 1305, Wallace was found guilty this time and drawn and quartered, a death reserved for traitors. Wallace's body parts and head were displayed in different parts of England not yet married to make an example against those considering of revolting against the English kingEdward II.<ref>For more on the capture Isabella and execution of William Wallaceher life, see: RossWarner, D. RK. (20052016). <i>For FreedomIsabella of France, The Rebel Queen: The Lasts Days Story of William Wallacethe Queen who Deposed her Husband Edward II.</i>. EdinburghGloucestershire, England: Luath PressAmberley Publishing.</ref>She was not even in England at this time. While Edward II is portrayed as effeminate, historical records do indicate he was possibly gay. But his role in English rule was not significant until after his father's reign. However, because Edward II was a relatively weak king, the Scots did successfully rebel against him.
Despite Wallace's death, he is shown as gaining revenge by impregnating the future consort of the king of England, Edward II's wife, Isabella of France. In fact, at this point shortly before Wallace's death, Isabella would have been no older than 9 years of age and not yet married to Edward II.<ref>For more on Isabella and her life, see: Warner, K. (2016). <i>Isabella of France, The Rebel Queen: The Story of the Queen who Deposed her Husband Edward II.</i> Gloucestershire, England: Amberley Publishing.</ref> In other words, she was not even in England yet. While Edward II is portrayed as effeminate, where historical records do indicate he was possibly homosexual, his role was not significant until after his father's reign. However, because Edward II was a relatively weak king, this did allow the Scots to successfully rebel against him. Robert the Bruce, in many ways, was far more successful than William Wallace, as he . He successfully rebelled from the English against England and Scotland regained its independence under his reign. The Battle of Bannockburn, as suggested by the movie, was a major turning point, although many . Bannockburn was the culmination of years of fighting and rebellion occurred before and after that battle between the Scots and English. Nevertheless, as the movie suggests, the Scots did gain their independence after the reign of Edward I.
==Conclusion==

Navigation menu