Braveheart is essentially a work of fiction, which draws inspiration from real historical events. However, due to the intense level of detail in costuming, makeup and special effects, audiences may incorrectly assume that the production is intended to be historically accurate. Some of the "inaccuracies" in Braveheart may have been motivated by artistic reasons. The anachronistic kilts worn by the Scots make the rebels more visually distinctive, the incomplete armor and missing helmets allow viewers to recognize the actors, and changes to characters and names make the story easier to follow. Modifications to the sequence of events create dramatic juxtapositions, allowing different lines in the story to appear to occur simultaneously. Some noted critiques include:
Braveheart's plot includes an affair between William Wallace and the Princess Isabelle, based upon Isabella of France. The film implies she is pregnant at the time of Wallace's execution, carrying the future Edward III of England. Historically, the real Isabella was a child of nine still living in France at this time, meaning she never met Wallace, and furthermore, was never a Princess of Wales, as she married Edward II after he became king.
Edward III of England was born in 1312, seven years after Wallace's death; thus it is impossible for Edward III to have been Wallace's son. (Note: this idea may have been derived from the play The Wallace by Sydney Goodsir Smith.)
Gibson was criticised for his portrayal of Isabella's future husband, Edward II of England. Although most historians agree that Edward was homosexual, many complained that the film presented demeaning stereotypes towards Edward. In the commentary, Mel Gibson explained he had not intended to show hatred towards anyone portrayed in the film (including the English). It should also be recalled that Mel Gibson did not write the screenplay.
The Battle of Stirling Bridge, the first skirmish in the film, was filmed without a bridge. The actual conflict was more of an ambush of the English as they attempted to cross the river Forth. (It is rumoured that Gibson told a Scottish local the bridge was removed as it got in the way, and the local replied "that's what the English found" [1].) The film also makes no mention of Andrew de Moray, Wallace's companion-in-arms and a major contributor at this battle. Curiously, the fight shown in the film is more like the Battle of Bannockburn 17 years later, with English cavalry charging Scottish schiltrons and being repulsed.
The film creates the impression that William Wallace invented the Scottish schiltrons and handed out pikes just before the battle. This is completely untrue.
Edward I's second wife, Margaret, whom he married in 1299, is absent from the film, although the span of history covered in the production includes this year. This implies his first wife Eleanor of Castile was his only spouse.
The film shows Irish conscripts switching sides and joining Wallace's forces at the Battle of Falkirk. The Irish forces were hired mercenaries who, from all accounts, fought well for Edward I. The Celtic soldiers who did display some rebellious tendencies were the Welsh, who had been conquered about a decade earlier. Edward I intended to use them as the first wave of attack and essentially as schiltron fodder. They did not take kindly to such intentions, even if they did not actually switch sides.
The film implies that Wallace's rebellion took place against a background of a fairly lengthy English occupation of Scotland. Actually, they had only invaded Scotland the year before (1296) and the mass hanging of Scottish nobles which Wallace witnessed as a boy could not have occurred at that time.
The sword carried by Gibson is a 16th century Scottish claymore. While a sword which is claimed to have belonged to Wallace (although this is disputed) exists in Scotland, it is significantly simpler.
There is some controversy about whether the jus prima noctis (also known as the droit de seigneur), the supposed right of a Lord to deflower virgins in his territory, actually existed, but it certainly never existed in either England or Scotland.
It is unclear whether Wallace had a wife or what her name was, but according to Scottish tradition her name was Marion Braidfute, apparently her name was changed to Murron in the film so audiences would not confuse her with Maid Marian from the Robin Hood stories.
Wallace's long-standing hatred for the English may not have been because of his wife's death. According to one legend, it arose from the fact that two English soldiers challenged Wallace over some fish he had caught. The argument escalated into a fight, resulting in Wallace killing the soldiers.
The then-future King Robert the Bruce is described as "Earl of Bruce", but actually, his title before becoming king was Earl of Carrick. Carrick is an ancient district in south-west Scotland, and Bruce (more accurately "de Brus") was Robert I's family name, of Norman origin.
Braveheart suggests Wallace supported the Bruce claim to the Scottish throne; however, Wallace supported the Balliol claim while Bruce was convinced of his father's rightful succession.
The reality of William Wallace's capture and execution was far worse than shown in the film.
The movie depicts Robert the Bruce's father (who was also named Robert) as a leper. There is no historical record of this, though Bruce himself contracted a skin disease before his death that has been alleged to be leprosy.
Bruce did not betray Wallace at Falkirk. He did eventually switch sides but this was a few years later and as a result of a dispute with the Comyns (not depicted in the film) who supported the Balliol claim to the throne (as had Wallace himself). The Scottish war effort collapsed a few years later because of the defeat of their French allies by the Flemish at Courtrai in 1302. Wallace was hunted down when the Scots were forced to surrender in 1305.
In his speech before the battle of Stirling Bridge, Mel Gibson's Wallace alludes to a hundred years of tyranny. In fact, the 13th century was one of the few centuries when Anglo-Scottish relations were largely peaceful. This changed after the accidental death of Alexander III in 1286 and of his heiress, the Maid of Norway shortly after, when Edward I was invited by the Scottish magnates to resolve the dispute over the Scottish crown (to which there were thirteen claimants), and used this opportunity to revive English claims of overlordship.
The film depicts Edward I dying at the same time as Wallace was executed. In fact, Wallace's execution took place in 1305, in Westminster, and King Edward died in 1307, two years later, en route to put down a fresh rebellion of the Scots, led by Robert the Bruce.
The film depicts Edward I defenestrating a friend and (implied) lover of the Prince of Wales. Edward never killed or harmed his son's lovers.
In battle, Wallace is shown painted blue with woad, a custom recorded of the ancient Picts, but one that had become extinct at least five centuries before his time, if not earlier.
The Scots are depicted as living in squalid, almost subterranean, houses of primitive character. In fact, by the late 13th century, Scotland was a small but reasonably prosperous medieval kingdom, with numerous small towns and many abbeys and cathedrals, much as in the rest of western Europe.
Thank god im only a quarter scottish though!
good for you, thank god im not English.
