I was in school when this film came out and remember my history teacher brought in the video and he would pause every time something inaccurate happened. It took us all week to watch
Apparently some of the Scottish crew brought this up during shooting asking why there’s no bridge and were told it would make things harder and get in the way to which the Scottish guys replied “The English had that same problem”
One thing that has been on my mind lately is how Braveheart is not really about the Scottish Wars of Independence as much as its about the Jacobite rebellions much later. Scottish Dress Bagpipes, "Highland Charges" as well as the rich vs poor theme. The idea of "outlawed tunes on outlawed pipes" while Bagpipes were not banned the idea that they were was based on the banning of Highland Dress which happened in 1746. Suppression of the Highlands was a major thing that happened due to repeated rebellions in the attempt to return a Stuart back to the throne.
What about the fact that William Wallace wasn't Braveheart? Robert the Bruce was. No one was called Braveheart during their lifetimes, but on his death bed decades later Robert the Bruce expressed that his only regret after uniting Scotland and becoming King was that he'd never gone on Crusade. After his death one of his closest friends, Sir James Douglas, had his heart removed and placed in a small silver casket, which he hung around his neck and went on Crusade with in Moorish Spain. He got cut off and surrounded and survivors claimed his last act was to throw the casket at an enemy, with claims that he shouted something like 'Onward Braveheart, and Douglas will follow or die.' Very likely made up, but people loved the tale and Robert the Bruce became known as Braveheart.
@@Nulli_Di Douglas tried to fulfil his last request, he was on route to the holy land and got caught up in fighting in Spain and died there, you're both giving parts of the same story.
"Who is this person who speaks to me as though I needed his advice?" Best line of the movie, imho. McGoohan's delivery is deliciously snide and seething with contempt.
There's no value in entertainment that actively misrepresents the past. People learn from movies far more than from textbooks, a film doesn't have to be 100% accurate, but it has to feel authentic to the past. It can be a fun film, but it's still a problem
Some of em get mad asl 😂😂 I love it though. They take it seriously and they know MOVIES is where most people are going to get their knowledge of the past
@@Bangin0utWest I agree. And this movie is so incredibly inaccurate that its almost hard to comprehend any of this movie has any historical accuracy at all. Still I agree and hate it when people make long rant reviews based on tearing apart a movies historical accuracy. One particular movie that really gets me vexed when I see it reviewed for having poor historical accuracy is Saving Private Ryan. Some people rip it apart. Its technically categorized as a "historical drama" or what not meaning it doesn't claim to be 100% historically accurate its a drama based on historical events. Even at that many veterans who were at some of the battles in the movie literally could never watch more then a few minutes of the movie as the battles were portrayed so accurately people watching it who actually fought in the war could not watch the damn movie without freaking the fuck out like they were reliving the trauma. But of course some people fine comb sift through it and rip it apart as bastardizing history when they find a few things wrong. And of course there was never any such thing as a private Ryan. And of course in reality nobody claimed there was. It is a historically based drama. Yet none the less real historians watch that movie and find for every non factual piece of gear or equipment or tactic used in a battle in a movie or way a rifle was shot in a scene it's like a 1/100 ratio of historical misrepresentations vs the actual historical accuracies displayed in the movie. Like WTF. That means for everything they got wrong they got 100 things right. The movie was pretty damn up to par on facts represented the way they should be. Now in the case of Braveheart we are talking about a totally different movie vs Saving Private Ryan probably more so the other way around it's more like a 100/1 historical inaccuracies vs historical accuracies type basis. LOL this movie uses so much BS it's not even funny. Still, I hate seeing long pointless rants ripping apart a piece of film for what it got wrong by some nerd on an endless tangent. Also the truth is this. These events took place between the late 1200s to the early 1300s. There weren't exactly notaries and computers and court reporters and newspapers and tv shows and cameras and photographs and youtube videos back then. You are going to have to understand history back then was kind of poorly documented and a lot of what survived from then until now is word of mouth and passed down stories. To recreate these events you need to use some fiction. Because otherwise what else do you have? A lot of myth. That being said with what little facts historians have its obvious this movie is like 99% bullshit LOL. But you know they probably got a few things right. And its always awesome when you see a documented video pointing out tons of historical inaccuracies to point out the things that are accurate first along the way to get a contrasted perspective on why the things that are incorrect should not be there. Let's just start with saying I think the most well portrayed character in this movie is the evil King Longshanks himself. If you watch this movie, watch it just to see who this guy was and what a horrible person he was at this point in history and what a tyrant he was people had to start wars just to try not to have your family justifiably raped on a daily basis because he owned all the land and that meant he was basically under the word of God in those times of belief and he did whatever he wanted unless someone stormed his army in a horrible bloody battle just to try and oppose that daily nonsense. Ok now the rest of it from there goes into totally manipulation on whatever historical facts we do know. In fact some believe there never was a William Wallace and he was a myth. Who was it that was tortured and dragged and hung and drawn and quartered and beheaded in defiance of the kind for starting war in defiance of tyranny? Well..... ..... in that time in history lots of people. But yes as it stands a lot of this movie was total garbage. Still, could I have done any better? Nope. I don't have the historical knowledge or the budget to create such a film. The film is entertaining at points and shows power struggles in a much more primitive environment and how social status and battles generally took place in such times. The movie takes these pieces and rearranges them however it likes and stomps on a lot of really good chances to more accurately portray how history probably really happened by then. But by pointing out what things weren't wrong I think it makes it more justifiable to point out what actually isn't correct to show a contrast. I mean as dumb as this movie gets with facts I sure as hell couldn't have done a better job. Seeing the medieval settings and battles and whatnot is still pretty cool. And yeah by the end of the movie they just totally crapped on how history probably really went along all together back then. But still, good review. I like how things were pointed out as being misconstrued but also how things were pointed out that may have or almost certainly did probably happen in such a way. Good review. Not boring.
@@AeneasGemini Except for the value of money it makes at the box office since in the end, it is for entertainment. If people follow it as accurate, that's their fault, not the filmmakers. A filmmaker is there to entertain, and make money.
Matt is being extremely kind to the people that made this movie, the movie is entertainment not historical and again Matt has pointed this out with style and class! Great job on this!
A very refreshing, patient and informative take on Braveheart by Matt Lewis. I like that he acknowledges it's inaccuracies, explains/highlights/breaksdown the real historical facts the films has altered or outright ommitted but also gives credit where credit is due. And he does all that in a very non pretentious manner.
It's technically a great movie, but some of the inaccuracies does make it harder to enjoy. It starts coming off more like a vanity project between Gibson's torture fetish and Wallace being such a Mary Sue. Like WTF is Isabella doing there.
Mel Gibson is to History, what a Fish is to a Bicycle.In his Movie Apocalypto, Spanish Conquistadors arrive at the end of the Movie, Which features the time of the Mayan Empire which ended 300 years prior to the 1500s. It also features a small girl with Small Pox that she could not have possibly caught before the Spanish arrived.
Oh yes, the atrocity that is The Patriot. Try mentioning it at the regimental museum of the Army unit depicted in the film. They still exist and aren’t particularly happy about it. Kind of like if the US Marines at Saipan used the civilians who were throwing themselves off the cliffs for target practice rather than being appalled and trying to save them.
27:07 I read that they were going to use a bridge but decided against it for several reasons (Logistically it would've been difficult to shoot, they wouldn't have been able to do their epic charge scene, attacking the English as they crossed the bridge is seen as a dishonorable act, etc). There's a story that during filming someone asked where the bridge was and Gibson said _“it got in the way”_ . They replied _”Aye, the English found it did as well”_ .
@@SchmokinJoe I'd like to take this moment to extend my personal congratulations at your having received the honour of sanctionh2993's response. This must be a proud day for you.
As a bagpiper myself, I had the opportunity to chat with Eric Riegler, who provided the ''bagpipe'' music for the movie. He never used any Highland bagpipes. He said he wanted to, but it was Gibson's wish that he play the Uilleann pipes. Uilleann pipes are a type bagpipe, but are played differently.
Gibson said in the commentary that he thought the highland pipes were too harsh and opted for the smoother sounding Irish pipes. Purely a style choice.
@@thelonegeekboy A particularly insulting choice particularly since they originated with the Anglo-Irish, but par for the course when it comes to the endless littany of bollocks that Gibson inserted into this film.
Uilleann pipes are different in that they are driven by a bellows operated by the elbow (the Irish for elbow is uilleann) unlike the Scottish or Galician ones that are operated by blowing. To my mind, and ears, the uilleann pipes have a much mellower sound as well as having a greater tonal range.
That opening scene with the pipe music always gets the hairs on my neck and arms standing to attention, and wether or not it's anywhere near accurate, it's a freakin awesome film.
@@asmo1313 The Kurgan was a Russian mercenary in Ireland. That is completely plausible because, in general terms it did happen. The most egregious thing that happened in that battle was that the Kurgan recognized Connor when he had no banner. From what I understand, the Clans Fraser and McCleod did fight around that time.
I found the post that I was remembering. Not as exact as I was remembering...but still a good way to start. I mean, the actual Scottish parts are pretty short, and more a setup for the later story in America. 16th century was when kilts were starting to be worn, so that's fine. Regular breeks would also be worn, and plenty of people in the movie were wearing those too. Clans did battle, so that's all good. Eilean Donan Castle belonged to the McKenzies, not the MacLeods, but they were very close geographically, so not crazy unlikely that they could have briefly held it if we're stretching credulity a bit. What else... the weather looked like it sucked, so that was pretty accurate. The battle where Connor gets the sword stuck in him was supposedly against the Frasers, and they held territory a little to the east, but it's certainly very possible they had fights... the Frasers liked to fight. The Frasers were wearing a bright red tartan, which is accurate for their 'Ancient' tartan. The MacLeods were wearing a blue/green tartan which again is pretty accurate. The Kurgan were Mounted Warriors, Kurgan in the movie pulls up on a horse. Though the armour... not sure what was going on there. Also, they tended towards bows, lances, and smaller swords, not the giant thing this Kurgan was wielding. There were a number of Witch Hunts around the time the movie was set (1536), 1597 pretty much all they did in Scotland was kill witches that year, so the hysteria surrounding Connor's survival, and the demands to burn him, would have been very likely to happen. His first wife/girlfriend Kate was mental, and from my experience redheaded Scottish women are indeed mental. Huh.. I thought I was going to shred this film. One thing, though, the Frasers are running towards Connor then backing off shouting, "That's Connor MacLeod! Not him!" and refusing to fight him. What I want to know is how they knew who he was, since this was his first battle so he wasn't some famous warrior, and I assume there weren't many ways to get pictures of Connor's face to the Fraser clan ahead of the battle. Turns out this movie is almost a documentary on 16th Century Scotland.@@asmo1313
@eccehobo brilliant summary. One of my favourite films. Awesome sound track and the transitions from the past to present were perfect. Hugely underrated
I’m a huge history buff, and I know this film is historically inaccurate. However, say what you will about its inaccuracies, but as a film it brought back the “cast of thousands” that was lacking in Hollywood. If it weren’t for BRAVEHEART, I don’t think we would have received films like GLADIATOR, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, 300, and even the LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy. Plus, the score is fantastic. I love this movie as a film.
But all those movies you mentioned used CGI crowds. I believe that BRAVEHEART was the last movie to use real crowds with 100% people, not a "small crowd" augmented with CGI (which is what those other movies do).
@@jondunmore4268 from the interwebs: "Apart from the simulated wounding of the horses already mentioned, the CGI was mostly used for some extreme long shots of Edward the Longshanks' army lining up for battle (before the actual fighting begins)." So, although it has large crowds of extras, up to 1600, it did use some augmented CGI crowds too. BTW, I found out googling the above that Troy used 4k extras and LOTR over 20k. But, I suspect that the latter referes to the famous half-time stadium chant and not actual stand-ins. Cheers!
Funny part in the opening of this movie: King Alexander III didnt die in 1280, he died in 1286. The narration starts being inaccurate like 3 sentences in.
The film was inaccurate enough, the narrator Matt added some more. I suppose he was out of his area of expertise. I thought at first when he missed the date it might just have been a simple mistake, but nope. He added a bunch more.
and Edward was the Lawgiver for a reason, he was much more than just a "cruel pagan". It's not like the English faith was that much different from the Scottish one at the time.
@@oteliogarcia1562it is particularly ironic for the film to label Edward as a pagan when the most Pagan thing depicted in the entire film is when Wallace rides out with blue face paint on.
Absolutely. And Alexander's Heir was his granddaughter, Margaret of Norway, who died as a child before being crowned, hence the request for mediation by the Scots to Edward I (who was well respected as a mediator) to sort out the 14 claimants. And if memory serves, it was Robert the Bruce's grandfather, another Robert who was one of the claimants.
Irony of not having the bridge in the movie at the Battle of Stirling bridge is the bridge was a major strategic advantage for the Scotts it definitely help them win the battle.
That's definitely the worst reason for not adding a bridge for that battle, to fight England's army on the open field was quite the fight back then, as countries on mainland Europe could also attest to.
It wouldn't have looked heroic enough--trap a bunch of armored cavalry on a bridge where they can barely move and butcher them, instead of outsmarting them in a fair fight? Not Hollywood enough.
The film is rather an adaptation of the Blind Harry's poem than an actual history. Bear that in mind. As inaccurate as it is it'll always have a special place in my heart as it's the reason I fell in love with the medieval history of Britain.
Or a film a about henga and horsa when the Anglo saxons first come over invited in by the welsh to fight for them against the picts and irish that be a good watch lol
I was in college when the film was released. In a 400 level British History class. The idea our professor pointed out was you CAN'T look at a movie like this as historical. He was hoping people would read about the real events and get insipired to learn more about history. You have to remember, in the mid 90's, there weren't too many films like this or about this period. Almost no movies are accurate. They all take creative liberty. Plus, this is based on a poem by Blind Harry. Gibson and Wallace both admitted that it should not be considered a documentary. If you take it at face value, it's a fantastic movie, if mostly fiction.
@@skeletorlikespotatoes7846 when Bruce died his followers took his heart on a crusade as his dream was to fight in the holy land. That's where brave heart comes from.
Really don't matter, still an outstanding film. Since when did anyone go to Hollywood for facts? Never understood people saying that or this didn't happen, no @#£& sherlock 🤣 turn off your brain and watch the film.
The Bruce was know as bravehart because he wanted to go fight the Muslim invaders of the Holy land but was to old and ill so request his heart be taken there after his death
Tartan, which is associated with different clans in Scotland, was largely actually created during the Victorian era. It is an example of an invented tradition that was used to boost the sales of cloth after the discovery of industrial dyes. On the other hand, the practice of painting one's face with blue paint (known as woad) had stopped almost a thousand years before this period.
@@ScarlettBoudicca Except they didn't. There is no evidence to support this. The Romans described Celtic fabric as striped or multicolored. The Picts weren't Celts either. The whole clan tartan thing is as the OP said, a modern contrivance.
Well, certainly in the modern sense of _clan_ tartans but what we'd recognise today as tartan dates back centuries prior to the Victorian era. Somewhat ironically to me as a Scot, what may have cemented the idea of what many consider a quintessentially Scottish tradition was the Vestiarium Scoticum, a fake historical reference made in the 19th century by two _English_ con men - the auld enemy at it again :). (it's the defined clan setts, hunting/dress tartan distinction etc. that's a Victorian invention - historically people just wove patterns they liked using locally available materials to dye the threads and as with all fashion, if other people liked it they copied it - in that sense there may well have been "regional patterns" just because local people copy locally)
There are many tartans all over the world including Chinese indian ect Tartan is ubiquitous becaus it is about the most complex thing you can do on a home loom
" the practice of painting one's face with blue paint (known as woad)" it turns out that however the Britons of Caesar's time decorated themselves (sources are vague) it wasn't with woad, which is a C16th interpretation. It turns out that woad has a caustic effect on the skin. Who knew?
@@markjones6564 Thank you for the correction! I knew I'd got it wrong, and was in too much of a rush to stop and look up the correct spelling. No offense intended.
These videos diving into historical films is simply elite content. Although Braveheart is riddled with historical inaccuracies - I love it. An all timer for me.
Yea this is idiotic as this movie was NEVER intended to be historical or a documentary, Mel Gibson heard the story of William Wallace from a Scottish person and he did not believe the story and then he had been convinced he asked himself, why had he not heard of this hero before. So he made this movie to lift up the Name William Wallace from the history books for all to see and google hehe....Today MILLIONS of people know who william wallace was because this movie. It had the effect Mel Gibson wanted, he took a worthy hero no one ever heard about and lifted him in to the light for all to see
@@niklasriva7053 Great-if you like non-historical crap, you've hit the jackpot with Braveheart Millions who watch this have no idea who William Wallace was, because the film is Hollywood tosh which tells you nothing accurate about either Wallace or medieval Scotland.
It's refreshing to hear a historian discuss this film who isn't a smarmy smartass. I respect how you can critique it's inaccuracies but also love the story & appreciate what it gets right.
@@jdunn101ify No. Because the entirety of the film is cobblers from beginning to end. And anyway anyone wearing a wrap around piece of cloth similar to a kilt in this film is indeed wearing a skirt because there is no evidence of anyone wearing kilts until 16th century.
@@dulls8475 Do you mean how was it a boost to Scottish tourism? Its a film about Scotland, most of it was filmed in Ireland, but some scenes were filmed in places like Glen Nevis in the highlands, where I'm from. And yes, it provided a big boost to tourism, because of the history mainly. There's a lot of Americans and other people in the new world with Scottish connections.
Anti-British propaganda, just like the patriot. Every single English/British character has a posh villainous accent, and they go so far as to just make shit up to make them seem more evil
I watched this with a Scottish friend who got a bit emotional during the speech at the battle where there was meant to be a bridge and said “Spoilers. We did”. It was many years after the film came out, and he did laugh as he knows enough history to know what is true and not
A Brian Borù film ending at the Battle of Clontarf. The Last High King of Ireland. Now that would be or could be a hell of a film 🎥 Who knows maybe someday. 🇮🇪☘️
Well, it would have a VERY unhappy ending! Brian Boru was killed when he was surprised attending a "mass", true to his staunch Catholic upbringing. Not exactly an " heroic" conclusion! Also, modern historians have pointed out that Brian Boru was fighting other Irish factions as much as the Vikings. Viking warriors were, in fact, present on both sides. It seems that sectarian factionism still hasn't disappeared from modern Irish politics either. I personally think the Irish of both the North and the Republic of Eire take religion far too seriously for the good of the country and it's people.
Maybe but how many countries and tribes were fighting each other in" the last of the Monica's? And that was a great movie. Another great film that could be made would be Grace O'Mally meeting Elizabeth 1ST and trying to free her son from the Tower of London which she successfully did. Yes they might not be entirely accurate, but neither was Brave Heart or Napoleon, but good story telling That shows the sprite of the time like Mary Queen of Scots, or Shakespeare in Love. Or like the Wind that Shakes the Barley, maybe not accurate but damp near enough to get a sprite and feel of the time. Isn't that what any historical movie strives for? As I said maybe someday we will see both Brian Borù and Grace O'Mally ( Bold Grace) in epic movies. 😎
Braveheart isn't the only film to do this but it's kind of weird when people are wearing mail when they aren't on the battlefield but in their daily life.
@@niklasriva7053 For what exactly? He won one battle was popular for a year, it all went pear shaped when the French abandoned the Scots and he went into hiding and was then killed. Robert the Bruce did the heavy lifting later.
@@niklasriva7053Rediculous excuse. You can bring recognition to Wallace while putting in due diligence to hake the film somewhat historically accurate.
I like that you gave this such a thorough review while still being able to appreciate the film for the what it was. I have always loved this movie. I’d love to see a more historically accurate version some day.
So glad you mentioned Glyndwr at the end, as a Welshman that grew up just down the road from Sycharth Castle, Glyndwr has always been a huge part of my life. Would love to see a film about him to the scale of Braveheart, the story is there, someone just needs to film it!
I don't care what anyone says, even with all its inaccuracies I've always loved this movie. It does exactly what a good epic film should, in inspiring emotion and telling a story that sticks with you, and that is saying nothing of the beatiful soundtrack.
No one cries freedom after going through such torture. They never painted their faces like the Pics when at Stirling Bridge. Mostly historical crap, but action wise is most fun!
We know this from the countless examples of people who were tortured and still spat in the face of their captors. Sorry to disappoint your fake realism claims but most "romanticization" of history is absolutely real 😅
movie have nothing to do with history, other than getting people to google, "was william wallace real?" as before mel gibson made this movie, only few hundred people in the entire world knew who he was, today, many millions have searched and read up on william wallace and thanks to mel gibson the memory of william wallace will continue for ever
Love this breakdown! Finally someone who knows history, acknowledges the mistakes/changes and yet still is able to love the movie. What you say at the end is the most important - the central core of the film is right.
A lot of Brave Heart was made in Co. Kildare on the Curragh Plains not far from where i was from. My mom used to go down to watch them, she even got an Full Arrow.
As a Scot, I despise Braveheart. It's because of this film that every Johnny Foreigner says we should be independent. I inform them that we already rejected independence, in a legal referendum, which had the largest democratic turnout in Scottish history. They then respond "but, I watched Braveheart duhduuuuuuuh"... /facepalm
Everyone knows its fiction, once you meet a Scots man you see their all bootlicker cowards without backbones😂 most of them are happy to be England's bumboy once they get some scraps from the table
This is 100% entirely historically inaccurate. Mel Gibson wasn't even alive during that time, and that's not the actual Robert the Bruce. No, no, none of this is accurate at all.
He was no traitor to England. Wallace was Scottish, not English so I understand that he didn't recognize English royalty or their authority over Scotland. His death an treatment was unjust.
He was also a war criminal who burned down villages and indiscriminately killed anybody in England while pillaging lol. The guy murdered children and nuns lmao, he wasn't a good guy.
Stay away from IQ tests then, you might get sad by the result lol Movie have nothing to do with battles or what they had on, it a movie made to make the world google "was william wallace real?" and mel gison succeeded with that, extremely well
@@tigerland4328 Mostly just Americans and one Australian. Scots know enough about their history to be insulted by this and the way it treats their national heroes.
I also can't help but find it funny that the music used to introduce this very Scottish setting is played on the Uilleann pipes. A traditional Irish instrument.
Watch the Outlaw King. It was a movie that takes on the story after William Wallace and it's a brilliant movie, yet they have been able to make it accurate.
8:37 This scene does not take place in 1280 but in fact around 1298 as the narrator mentions that many years have passed since Wallace's father was killed
1298 is just impossible. Because the scene was before Stirling Bridge battle and before the entire rebellion starts. Stirling Bridge itself was 1297 and it took some time for the rebellion to be noticed and bad enough that the english would send an army. 1280 was likely a bit too early a date. But 1298 is already too late. In fact, 1298 would already be the Battle of Falkirk. So....maybe 1295? somewhere around that? He also did the math wrong with Isabella´s age lol Because she was born in 1295 and she would have been -15 in 1280 For some reason, everyone seems to have issues with dates lol
Nice to see ONE comment of someone who got what this movie was about, What Mel Gibson asked himself was "How have I never heard of this person before?" and then he made this movie to spread his name and now millions of people have searched up william wallace online
Lots of historical inaccuracies but the overall narrative is a real one. Decent analysis (for an Englishman ;D) and yes, Patrick McGoohan is superb as King Edward I
@@SilverScribe85 Longshanks was not evil. He was a hero in his youth and one of the strongest kings England ever had. Read some history on him . Of course in the fantasy film, Braveheart he is portrayed differently.
@@SilverScribe85 Because he put John Balliol on the throne as a puppet king and when the Scots deposed him (Balliol) and created the Auld alliance with France Edward declared war and invaded. He won this war and set up governors to rule Scotland for him. The average Scot did not like this so they rebelled and from this we get the history of William Wallace and Robert the Bruce. Please remember Braveheart is a fantasy film. Please read about Edward the first( and Wallace) on wikipedia.
One of the thing I have noticed of the one clan turned up was MacGregors. The MacGregors said they were landless....yes, they were landless...in 1600, miles off the mark, but still a good movie.
Regarding Wallace's execution, it's clear that Edward I didn't care for titles if he wanted to execute someone. A number of years earlier, he used the same method of execution for the Prince of Wales.
Declaration of Arbroath 1320 " It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself."
@@dulls8475 You do know that any law passed by the EU has to be unanimous between all the countries unless in very extreme circumstances. Average Brexiteer, knows fuck all and continues to prove it daily. So yeah all the laws the little Englanders complained about, they literally voted for, the MEPs they voted for agreed to those things, including Nigel Farage.
It’s good that we have historians like this gentleman, the amount of bs in this movie is unreal! It’s great to have someone that actually knows the story and taking the time to explain it all.
Captivating video, loved every second of it, the ads tapped me out after 22 minutes, I am trying to make diner while I listen in and I need my hands to cook, not for skiping ads.
I wish medieval heroic romance movies made a return like that Robin Hood movie from the 1930s or the Disney one from 1973. Or Ivanhoe. We could use some more
A Hugh O'Neill movie would be a much better choice I think. A lot is known historically, and it's got everything, so you wouldn't need to make anything up. He came from the oldest existing royal family in Europe. They tried to bring him up as a civilised Elizabethan English "gentleman", but he couldn't wait to revert to being a "wilde" Irishman. Then they came for him with the largest army ever assembled by the English up to that point in history. A lengthy cowboys and Indians type war ensued and he was initially successful, then full scale war occurred all over Ireland. Thousands of Spanish came and joined the fight. He was ultimately defeated, fled to Spain, and ended up penniless in Rome, and Ireland was never the same again. Everyone is in it - Elizabeth 1 - Walter Raleigh, who throws the coat over the puddle, but also massacres a load of innocent Irish people (Braveheart style) but this time it's historically accurate. You could do a really good move with Hugh O'Neill.
I spent a fall semester abroad in Grantham, England and took weekend excursions all over the Isles and Europe. I actually went to the museum where Wallace's sword is kept. That summer this movie was released and I was blown away. Also tidbit, a friend of mine actually dated the crazy Irishman when she lived in CA.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
I was in school when this film came out and remember my history teacher brought in the video and he would pause every time something inaccurate happened. It took us all week to watch
The title braveheart doesn't even refer to William Wallace. Braveheart is in reference to Robert the Bruce.
Wait... did you have history every day?
@@sergiokaminotanjoA-level history everyday with double periods on Wednesday and Fridays
@@sergiokaminotanjoin high school we had the same class every day
@@sergiokaminotanjoYes. In US high schools you have the same class every week for the semester. About 12 weeks.
The lack of Stirling bridge at the battle of Stirling bridge really still cracks me up.
Apparently some of the Scottish crew brought this up during shooting asking why there’s no bridge and were told it would make things harder and get in the way to which the Scottish guys replied “The English had that same problem”
@@MrTorgueHighFiveFlexington😂😂😂
@@MrTorgueHighFiveFlexingtonone of the best quotes ever
the script originally had it. They cut it for budget reasons.
One thing that has been on my mind lately is how Braveheart is not really about the Scottish Wars of Independence as much as its about the Jacobite rebellions much later.
Scottish Dress
Bagpipes,
"Highland Charges"
as well as the rich vs poor theme.
The idea of "outlawed tunes on outlawed pipes" while Bagpipes were not banned the idea that they were was based on the banning of Highland Dress which happened in 1746.
Suppression of the Highlands was a major thing that happened due to repeated rebellions in the attempt to return a Stuart back to the throne.
What about the fact that William Wallace wasn't Braveheart? Robert the Bruce was.
No one was called Braveheart during their lifetimes, but on his death bed decades later Robert the Bruce expressed that his only regret after uniting Scotland and becoming King was that he'd never gone on Crusade. After his death one of his closest friends, Sir James Douglas, had his heart removed and placed in a small silver casket, which he hung around his neck and went on Crusade with in Moorish Spain. He got cut off and surrounded and survivors claimed his last act was to throw the casket at an enemy, with claims that he shouted something like 'Onward Braveheart, and Douglas will follow or die.' Very likely made up, but people loved the tale and Robert the Bruce became known as Braveheart.
@@Nulli_Di Douglas tried to fulfil his last request, he was on route to the holy land and got caught up in fighting in Spain and died there, you're both giving parts of the same story.
Nice!! If true, that is pretty bad-ass!! lol
He wasn’t going on Crusade in moorish Spain, he was trying to go on crusade to the holy land but was ambushed in moorish Spain and killed
"Promise me, that you when I die you will cut out my heart & wear it around your neck in a small silver casket."
"Yes, my Lord."
@@alwaysdisputin9930 LOL!! Where did that come from?
"Who is this person who speaks to me as though I needed his advice?" Best line of the movie, imho. McGoohan's delivery is deliciously snide and seething with contempt.
Someone well-versed in the arts of war and militree tactics.
Nah!
The BEST line is right at the end...
" I hope you've washed your arse this morning! It's about to be kissed by a King!"
McGoohan rocks this movie
I like when Isabella says, "The King is dying and his son is a wimp. Who do you thing will rule this kingdom?"
Patrick McGoohan was the baddest badass in the movie.
I love seeing a historian commenting on the lack of historical accuracy, but without being offended, and still seeing some value in it.
There's no value in entertainment that actively misrepresents the past. People learn from movies far more than from textbooks, a film doesn't have to be 100% accurate, but it has to feel authentic to the past. It can be a fun film, but it's still a problem
Some of em get mad asl 😂😂 I love it though. They take it seriously and they know MOVIES is where most people are going to get their knowledge of the past
@@Bangin0utWest I agree. And this movie is so incredibly inaccurate that its almost hard to comprehend any of this movie has any historical accuracy at all. Still I agree and hate it when people make long rant reviews based on tearing apart a movies historical accuracy. One particular movie that really gets me vexed when I see it reviewed for having poor historical accuracy is Saving Private Ryan. Some people rip it apart. Its technically categorized as a "historical drama" or what not meaning it doesn't claim to be 100% historically accurate its a drama based on historical events. Even at that many veterans who were at some of the battles in the movie literally could never watch more then a few minutes of the movie as the battles were portrayed so accurately people watching it who actually fought in the war could not watch the damn movie without freaking the fuck out like they were reliving the trauma. But of course some people fine comb sift through it and rip it apart as bastardizing history when they find a few things wrong. And of course there was never any such thing as a private Ryan. And of course in reality nobody claimed there was. It is a historically based drama. Yet none the less real historians watch that movie and find for every non factual piece of gear or equipment or tactic used in a battle in a movie or way a rifle was shot in a scene it's like a 1/100 ratio of historical misrepresentations vs the actual historical accuracies displayed in the movie. Like WTF. That means for everything they got wrong they got 100 things right. The movie was pretty damn up to par on facts represented the way they should be. Now in the case of Braveheart we are talking about a totally different movie vs Saving Private Ryan probably more so the other way around it's more like a 100/1 historical inaccuracies vs historical accuracies type basis. LOL this movie uses so much BS it's not even funny. Still, I hate seeing long pointless rants ripping apart a piece of film for what it got wrong by some nerd on an endless tangent. Also the truth is this. These events took place between the late 1200s to the early 1300s. There weren't exactly notaries and computers and court reporters and newspapers and tv shows and cameras and photographs and youtube videos back then. You are going to have to understand history back then was kind of poorly documented and a lot of what survived from then until now is word of mouth and passed down stories. To recreate these events you need to use some fiction. Because otherwise what else do you have? A lot of myth. That being said with what little facts historians have its obvious this movie is like 99% bullshit LOL. But you know they probably got a few things right. And its always awesome when you see a documented video pointing out tons of historical inaccuracies to point out the things that are accurate first along the way to get a contrasted perspective on why the things that are incorrect should not be there. Let's just start with saying I think the most well portrayed character in this movie is the evil King Longshanks himself. If you watch this movie, watch it just to see who this guy was and what a horrible person he was at this point in history and what a tyrant he was people had to start wars just to try not to have your family justifiably raped on a daily basis because he owned all the land and that meant he was basically under the word of God in those times of belief and he did whatever he wanted unless someone stormed his army in a horrible bloody battle just to try and oppose that daily nonsense. Ok now the rest of it from there goes into totally manipulation on whatever historical facts we do know. In fact some believe there never was a William Wallace and he was a myth. Who was it that was tortured and dragged and hung and drawn and quartered and beheaded in defiance of the kind for starting war in defiance of tyranny? Well.....
..... in that time in history lots of people. But yes as it stands a lot of this movie was total garbage. Still, could I have done any better? Nope. I don't have the historical knowledge or the budget to create such a film. The film is entertaining at points and shows power struggles in a much more primitive environment and how social status and battles generally took place in such times. The movie takes these pieces and rearranges them however it likes and stomps on a lot of really good chances to more accurately portray how history probably really happened by then. But by pointing out what things weren't wrong I think it makes it more justifiable to point out what actually isn't correct to show a contrast. I mean as dumb as this movie gets with facts I sure as hell couldn't have done a better job. Seeing the medieval settings and battles and whatnot is still pretty cool. And yeah by the end of the movie they just totally crapped on how history probably really went along all together back then. But still, good review. I like how things were pointed out as being misconstrued but also how things were pointed out that may have or almost certainly did probably happen in such a way. Good review. Not boring.
They should have just admitted they made a fantasy movie, because that's what this is. There's no point tying historical characters to it.
@@AeneasGemini Except for the value of money it makes at the box office since in the end, it is for entertainment. If people follow it as accurate, that's their fault, not the filmmakers. A filmmaker is there to entertain, and make money.
I love how beautifully green and clean the ground is after the battles.
😂😂
Actually human corpses make good fertilizer. Lol
Clearly you're colour blind.....
Your profile picture sums up what Mel did to history 😂
😂
Matt is being extremely kind to the people that made this movie, the movie is entertainment not historical and again Matt has pointed this out with style and class! Great job on this!
How old are you? Sold as a Docudrama in 1995?!? Where the F' did you live* back then?
*Pre you, right?
@@dallesamllhals9161 old enough to know this movie is entertainment with a whiff of history, but great entertainment it is
@@laneoswego6989 Danelaw, ring a bell?
♥ fra Jylland
Same here. Old enough to know better..
Exactly, it's a movie designed to be entertaining - it's not a documentary!
"Historians from England will say I am a liar."
Definitely got that bit right. 😂
Historians from other places too
They've said worse things about Mel 😂
I take it you’re a yank. You probably think The Patriot is a documentary too 😂
So have a lot of people from other places too@@bazmc1153
Lmaooo
A very refreshing, patient and informative take on Braveheart by Matt Lewis. I like that he acknowledges it's inaccuracies, explains/highlights/breaksdown the real historical facts the films has altered or outright ommitted but also gives credit where credit is due. And he does all that in a very non pretentious manner.
Braveheart may be full of inaccuracies but man, what a great movie it is ☺️ still one of my all time favorites!
It's technically a great movie, but some of the inaccuracies does make it harder to enjoy. It starts coming off more like a vanity project between Gibson's torture fetish and Wallace being such a Mary Sue. Like WTF is Isabella doing there.
Mel Gibson is a genius. He has made the same movie three or four times, just changing the costumes and accents.
a few good battle scenes but mostly wank, a person who thinks this plop is good, doesn`t know a lot about film.
You Scottish by any chance ?
@@andym9571Me? Nope, I'm German 😬
Would love to see an equivalent of this for The Patriot...or should I say, Braveheart Part II: Revolutionary War Crimes Boogaloo.
Mel Gibson is to History, what a Fish is to a Bicycle.In his Movie Apocalypto, Spanish Conquistadors arrive at the end of the Movie, Which features the time of the Mayan Empire which ended 300 years prior to the 1500s. It also features a small girl with Small Pox that she could not have possibly caught before the Spanish arrived.
Oh yes, the atrocity that is The Patriot. Try mentioning it at the regimental museum of the Army unit depicted in the film. They still exist and aren’t particularly happy about it. Kind of like if the US Marines at Saipan used the civilians who were throwing themselves off the cliffs for target practice rather than being appalled and trying to save them.
LOL I just wonder how many people in the comment section are old enough to get the "2...Boogaloo" joke are.
Breakin
The patriot and U571 are just awful
27:07 I read that they were going to use a bridge but decided against it for several reasons (Logistically it would've been difficult to shoot, they wouldn't have been able to do their epic charge scene, attacking the English as they crossed the bridge is seen as a dishonorable act, etc).
There's a story that during filming someone asked where the bridge was and Gibson said _“it got in the way”_ . They replied _”Aye, the English found it did as well”_ .
Was the Scotsman on holiday in Ireland at the time of this amusing yet profound encounter?
Third version of this story I've read in 5 minutes.
@@sanctionh2993 And my comment gets the privilege of your response? I'm honored
@@SchmokinJoe I'd like to take this moment to extend my personal congratulations at your having received the honour of sanctionh2993's response. This must be a proud day for you.
I’d like to take a minute to honor you for responding in a way that’s not dickish but deserved.
As a bagpiper myself, I had the opportunity to chat with Eric Riegler, who provided the ''bagpipe'' music for the movie. He never used any Highland bagpipes. He said he wanted to, but it was Gibson's wish that he play the Uilleann pipes. Uilleann pipes are a type bagpipe, but are played differently.
Gibson said in the commentary that he thought the highland pipes were too harsh and opted for the smoother sounding Irish pipes. Purely a style choice.
@@thelonegeekboy A particularly insulting choice particularly since they originated with the Anglo-Irish, but par for the course when it comes to the endless littany of bollocks that Gibson inserted into this film.
Uilleann pipes are different in that they are driven by a bellows operated by the elbow (the Irish for elbow is uilleann) unlike the Scottish or Galician ones that are operated by blowing. To my mind, and ears, the uilleann pipes have a much mellower sound as well as having a greater tonal range.
Yep! It's like they were committed to making every single aspect of the movie inaccurate in some way. 😂It's as impressive as it is absurd.
As a bagpipe myself, I confirm all of this.
That opening scene with the pipe music always gets the hairs on my neck and arms standing to attention, and wether or not it's anywhere near accurate, it's a freakin awesome film.
I've read that Highlander was actually more historically accurate than Braveheart. I would like to see a historian breakdown of Highlander.
say what? the Kurgan was real?!?!
@@asmo1313 The Kurgan was a Russian mercenary in Ireland. That is completely plausible because, in general terms it did happen. The most egregious thing that happened in that battle was that the Kurgan recognized Connor when he had no banner. From what I understand, the Clans Fraser and McCleod did fight around that time.
I found the post that I was remembering. Not as exact as I was remembering...but still a good way to start.
I mean, the actual Scottish parts are pretty short, and more a setup for the later story in America. 16th century was when kilts were starting to be worn, so that's fine. Regular breeks would also be worn, and plenty of people in the movie were wearing those too.
Clans did battle, so that's all good. Eilean Donan Castle belonged to the McKenzies, not the MacLeods, but they were very close geographically, so not crazy unlikely that they could have briefly held it if we're stretching credulity a bit. What else... the weather looked like it sucked, so that was pretty accurate.
The battle where Connor gets the sword stuck in him was supposedly against the Frasers, and they held territory a little to the east, but it's certainly very possible they had fights... the Frasers liked to fight. The Frasers were wearing a bright red tartan, which is accurate for their 'Ancient' tartan. The MacLeods were wearing a blue/green tartan which again is pretty accurate.
The Kurgan were Mounted Warriors, Kurgan in the movie pulls up on a horse. Though the armour... not sure what was going on there. Also, they tended towards bows, lances, and smaller swords, not the giant thing this Kurgan was wielding.
There were a number of Witch Hunts around the time the movie was set (1536), 1597 pretty much all they did in Scotland was kill witches that year, so the hysteria surrounding Connor's survival, and the demands to burn him, would have been very likely to happen.
His first wife/girlfriend Kate was mental, and from my experience redheaded Scottish women are indeed mental.
Huh.. I thought I was going to shred this film.
One thing, though, the Frasers are running towards Connor then backing off shouting, "That's Connor MacLeod! Not him!" and refusing to fight him. What I want to know is how they knew who he was, since this was his first battle so he wasn't some famous warrior, and I assume there weren't many ways to get pictures of Connor's face to the Fraser clan ahead of the battle.
Turns out this movie is almost a documentary on 16th Century Scotland.@@asmo1313
@eccehobo brilliant summary.
One of my favourite films. Awesome sound track and the transitions from the past to present were perfect.
Hugely underrated
So was Star Wars
I’m a huge history buff, and I know this film is historically inaccurate. However, say what you will about its inaccuracies, but as a film it brought back the “cast of thousands” that was lacking in Hollywood. If it weren’t for BRAVEHEART, I don’t think we would have received films like GLADIATOR, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, 300, and even the LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy. Plus, the score is fantastic. I love this movie as a film.
James Horner was a genius. RIP
I love this film as a movie.
You are so right ! This movie put Scotland back on the map. The tourist trade blossomed again in Scotland
But all those movies you mentioned used CGI crowds.
I believe that BRAVEHEART was the last movie to use real crowds with 100% people, not a "small crowd" augmented with CGI (which is what those other movies do).
@@jondunmore4268 from the interwebs: "Apart from the simulated wounding of the horses already mentioned, the CGI was mostly used for some extreme long shots of Edward the Longshanks' army lining up for battle (before the actual fighting begins)." So, although it has large crowds of extras, up to 1600, it did use some augmented CGI crowds too.
BTW, I found out googling the above that Troy used 4k extras and LOTR over 20k. But, I suspect that the latter referes to the famous half-time stadium chant and not actual stand-ins. Cheers!
Funny part in the opening of this movie: King Alexander III didnt die in 1280, he died in 1286. The narration starts being inaccurate like 3 sentences in.
The film was inaccurate enough, the narrator Matt added some more. I suppose he was out of his area of expertise. I thought at first when he missed the date it might just have been a simple mistake, but nope. He added a bunch more.
and Edward was the Lawgiver for a reason, he was much more than just a "cruel pagan". It's not like the English faith was that much different from the Scottish one at the time.
@@oteliogarcia1562it is particularly ironic for the film to label Edward as a pagan when the most Pagan thing depicted in the entire film is when Wallace rides out with blue face paint on.
Absolutely. And Alexander's Heir was his granddaughter, Margaret of Norway, who died as a child before being crowned, hence the request for mediation by the Scots to Edward I (who was well respected as a mediator) to sort out the 14 claimants. And if memory serves, it was Robert the Bruce's grandfather, another Robert who was one of the claimants.
History channel have aliens
Irony of not having the bridge in the movie at the Battle of Stirling bridge is the bridge was a major strategic advantage for the Scotts it definitely help them win the battle.
That's definitely the worst reason for not adding a bridge for that battle, to fight England's army on the open field was quite the fight back then, as countries on mainland Europe could also attest to.
It wouldn't have looked heroic enough--trap a bunch of armored cavalry on a bridge where they can barely move and butcher them, instead of outsmarting them in a fair fight? Not Hollywood enough.
@@bazmc1153 That wasn't really till his grandson Edward III sallied forth fifty years afterwards.
The film is rather an adaptation of the Blind Harry's poem than an actual history. Bear that in mind.
As inaccurate as it is it'll always have a special place in my heart as it's the reason I fell in love with the medieval history of Britain.
Exactly - as history it's pretty much hockum, but it is a pretty good enactment of the themes of the poem.
The fact that Robert the Bruce's preamble about the movie being fake news is already pretty telling.
Damn, that was excellent!!
To this day, the Braveheart soundtrack STILL makes me tear right up! It just brings out such strong emotions! 😭😭😭
Being Welsh I think it’s high time we had an Owain Glyndwr film
welsh didn’t fight like the scot’s sadly. i heard there making a tv show on Owain coming out next year
Or a film a about henga and horsa when the Anglo saxons first come over invited in by the welsh to fight for them against the picts and irish that be a good watch lol
Llywelyn ap Gruffudd would be great.
Don't ask Gibson to do it! He'll have the Welsh fighting the English with male voice choirs and dragons!
Hugh O Neil of Ireland. Definitely a movie in there
Now having analysed Braveheart, I would love for him to do a similar break down of Outlaw King if he haven't already! :)
Although not the same timeframe as much of Outlaw King is set after Wallace had been executed, but so much more historically accurate!
@@camerondorsett7598😂no it isn't at all
@@britishpatriot7386 In comparison to other historical dramas, Outlaw King is essentially an documentary piece.
Outlaw King is a real movie about Bravehart 😊
@@britishpatriot7386It’s a lot closer to the truth than Braveheart, although not that close either.
I love the Music, but the film is so inaccurate it hurts. Why change so much when the History is so cool
Yup! The unique bridge battle was replaced with generic stuff and Scots were changed to some noble savage archetype.
"English historians will call me a liar" English historian proceeds to call him liar lol
I was in college when the film was released. In a 400 level British History class. The idea our professor pointed out was you CAN'T look at a movie like this as historical. He was hoping people would read about the real events and get insipired to learn more about history. You have to remember, in the mid 90's, there weren't too many films like this or about this period.
Almost no movies are accurate. They all take creative liberty. Plus, this is based on a poem by Blind Harry. Gibson and Wallace both admitted that it should not be considered a documentary.
If you take it at face value, it's a fantastic movie, if mostly fiction.
He should break down Outlaw King which is much better
Portrayal Edward II was much better. Like a coked up young Etonian.
It's more accurate and not worth slaging off.
This video confirms my long-held opinion that most of Braveheart is nonsense.
It is. Braveheart doesn't even refer to Wallace. It refers to Robert the Bruce.
Nope it isn't
@@timothymorgan2610wrong 😅
@@skeletorlikespotatoes7846 when Bruce died his followers took his heart on a crusade as his dream was to fight in the holy land. That's where brave heart comes from.
Really don't matter, still an outstanding film. Since when did anyone go to Hollywood for facts? Never understood people saying that or this didn't happen, no @#£& sherlock 🤣 turn off your brain and watch the film.
Robert the Bruce was called braveheart
Not Wallace.
In the movie it was made as though it's Wallace so calm down
@@britishpatriot7386 lol calm down, yh because I'm so stressed I really need to calm down. Stupid reply
The Bruce was know as bravehart because he wanted to go fight the Muslim invaders of the Holy land but was to old and ill so request his heart be taken there after his death
@@albertbryant3551 I did not know that , thanks for the info 👍 we never stop learning
This was a great video. Hope Matt Lewis will do more of these.
The soundtrack for Braveheart is something else
The music score was superb.
Tartan, which is associated with different clans in Scotland, was largely actually created during the Victorian era. It is an example of an invented tradition that was used to boost the sales of cloth after the discovery of industrial dyes. On the other hand, the practice of painting one's face with blue paint (known as woad) had stopped almost a thousand years before this period.
@@ScarlettBoudicca Except they didn't. There is no evidence to support this. The Romans described Celtic fabric as striped or multicolored. The Picts weren't Celts either. The whole clan tartan thing is as the OP said, a modern contrivance.
Well, certainly in the modern sense of _clan_ tartans but what we'd recognise today as tartan dates back centuries prior to the Victorian era. Somewhat ironically to me as a Scot, what may have cemented the idea of what many consider a quintessentially Scottish tradition was the Vestiarium Scoticum, a fake historical reference made in the 19th century by two _English_ con men - the auld enemy at it again :).
(it's the defined clan setts, hunting/dress tartan distinction etc. that's a Victorian invention - historically people just wove patterns they liked using locally available materials to dye the threads and as with all fashion, if other people liked it they copied it - in that sense there may well have been "regional patterns" just because local people copy locally)
There are many tartans all over the world including Chinese indian ect Tartan is ubiquitous becaus it is about the most complex thing you can do on a home loom
" the practice of painting one's face with blue paint (known as woad)" it turns out that however the Britons of Caesar's time decorated themselves (sources are vague) it wasn't with woad, which is a C16th interpretation. It turns out that woad has a caustic effect on the skin. Who knew?
@@anonymes2884 Although the same common dye materials are available over much of the island. Red was the principal exception.
Love the idea of an Owen Glendower movie. I hope you get that call, Matt!
Never call Him Owen Glendower😤 He’s called Owain Glyndŵr✊️🏴🏴🏴✊️
@@markjones6564 Thank you for the correction! I knew I'd got it wrong, and was in too much of a rush to stop and look up the correct spelling. No offense intended.
@@mariposahorribilis No problem👍👍👍
Yep,I'd love an Owain Glyndwr biopic! ✊⚔️🏴
I love these truth-versus-Hollywood analyses! Thank you, Matt, for this excellent video. 👏👏👏👏👏👏
These videos diving into historical films is simply elite content.
Although Braveheart is riddled with historical inaccuracies - I love it. An all timer for me.
Yea this is idiotic as this movie was NEVER intended to be historical or a documentary, Mel Gibson heard the story of William Wallace from a Scottish person and he did not believe the story and then he had been convinced he asked himself, why had he not heard of this hero before. So he made this movie to lift up the Name William Wallace from the history books for all to see and google hehe....Today MILLIONS of people know who william wallace was because this movie. It had the effect Mel Gibson wanted, he took a worthy hero no one ever heard about and lifted him in to the light for all to see
@@niklasriva7053 Great-if you like non-historical crap, you've hit the jackpot with Braveheart
Millions who watch this have no idea who William Wallace was, because the film is Hollywood tosh which tells you nothing accurate about either Wallace or medieval Scotland.
@@FranzBieberkopf The movie gets a lot of key details right. For you to say nothing was accurate makes you look foolish.
How is pointing out what’s historically true or false “elite”?
@@Stitchwitchstitch because it’s entertaining….
It's refreshing to hear a historian discuss this film who isn't a smarmy smartass. I respect how you can critique it's inaccuracies but also love the story & appreciate what it gets right.
I agree. Its extremely difficult for a historian not to be a smarmy smartass when it comes to this film.
@@osric1730like repeatedly referring to a kilt as a skirt?
@@jdunn101ify No. Because the entirety of the film is cobblers from beginning to end. And anyway anyone wearing a wrap around piece of cloth similar to a kilt in this film is indeed wearing a skirt because there is no evidence of anyone wearing kilts until 16th century.
This parody of history gave an enormous boost to the call for Scottish Independence.
A film from 1995 had a big effect in the indy surge in 2014.
Really?
@@julianshepherd2038 Yes. Huge impact.
@@dulls8475 Actually not really, but it did do wonders for the Scottish tourist industry.
@@stewartmackay How? It was filmed in Ireland...
@@dulls8475 Do you mean how was it a boost to Scottish tourism? Its a film about Scotland, most of it was filmed in Ireland, but some scenes were filmed in places like Glen Nevis in the highlands, where I'm from. And yes, it provided a big boost to tourism, because of the history mainly. There's a lot of Americans and other people in the new world with Scottish connections.
Love your shows!! You are one of Favorite host on History Hits!!
It's astonishing how inaccurate this movie is
Anti-British propaganda, just like the patriot. Every single English/British character has a posh villainous accent, and they go so far as to just make shit up to make them seem more evil
Not astonishing - it's Hollywood. Historical illiteracy in spades.
Not astonishing - it's Hollywood. Historical illiteracy in spades
WHich makes it all the more hilarious how so many Scots worship it.
I think the most inaccurate thing in the film is the modern concept of fighting for 'freedom'.
This film got me into history when I was a kid. Still one of my favorite films of all time!
I watched this with a Scottish friend who got a bit emotional during the speech at the battle where there was meant to be a bridge and said “Spoilers. We did”.
It was many years after the film came out, and he did laugh as he knows enough history to know what is true and not
A Brian Borù film ending at the Battle of Clontarf. The Last High King of Ireland. Now that would be or could be a hell of a film 🎥
Who knows maybe someday. 🇮🇪☘️
Great idea, Respect from County Wexford Ireland 🇮🇪 👏
No one wants to see a film about a king called brian. 😀
Well, it would have a VERY unhappy ending!
Brian Boru was killed when he was surprised attending a "mass", true to his staunch Catholic upbringing.
Not exactly an " heroic" conclusion!
Also, modern historians have pointed out that Brian Boru was fighting other Irish factions as much as the Vikings. Viking warriors were, in fact, present on both sides.
It seems that sectarian factionism still hasn't disappeared from modern Irish politics either.
I personally think the Irish of both the North and the Republic of Eire take religion far too seriously for the good of the country and it's people.
Maybe but how many countries and tribes were fighting each other in" the last of the Monica's? And that was a great movie.
Another great film that could be made would be Grace O'Mally meeting Elizabeth 1ST and trying to free her son from the Tower of London which she successfully did. Yes they might not be entirely accurate, but neither was Brave Heart or Napoleon, but good story telling
That shows the sprite of the time like Mary Queen of Scots, or Shakespeare in Love. Or like the Wind that Shakes the Barley, maybe not accurate but damp near enough to get a sprite and feel of the time. Isn't that what any historical movie strives for?
As I said maybe someday we will see both Brian Borù and Grace O'Mally ( Bold
Grace) in epic movies. 😎
@@stellen11😂
Braveheart isn't the only film to do this but it's kind of weird when people are wearing mail when they aren't on the battlefield but in their daily life.
because it not about the battles, it was bringing recognition to William Wallace
@@niklasriva7053 For what exactly? He won one battle was popular for a year, it all went pear shaped when the French abandoned the Scots and he went into hiding and was then killed. Robert the Bruce did the heavy lifting later.
There are accounts of people going around with armor under their clothes tho, so in that sense at least it happened
@@niklasriva7053Rediculous excuse. You can bring recognition to Wallace while putting in due diligence to hake the film somewhat historically accurate.
I like that you gave this such a thorough review while still being able to appreciate the film for the what it was. I have always loved this movie. I’d love to see a more historically accurate version some day.
As a kid must have watched this 100+ times. And one of the best soundtracks❤
Would you do a commentary on the film Rob Roy with Liam Neeson?
Now this is an actually good suggestion
A superior film to Braveheart.
@@Peruvian_Necktie I agree
@@Peruvian_Necktie ABSOLUTELY.
Great video. Sure loads of inaccuracies but it's still a great film. And yes a film about Owain Glyndwr is long overdue.
38:10 I never noticed before that Mel Gibson was doing a crucifixion scene in this movie. In hindsight this seem obvious. It's Mel Gibson.
So glad you mentioned Glyndwr at the end, as a Welshman that grew up just down the road from Sycharth Castle, Glyndwr has always been a huge part of my life. Would love to see a film about him to the scale of Braveheart, the story is there, someone just needs to film it!
👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼
You want all the bollocks to go with it too, or do you want an actual historical epic?
I don't care what anyone says, even with all its inaccuracies I've always loved this movie. It does exactly what a good epic film should, in inspiring emotion and telling a story that sticks with you, and that is saying nothing of the beatiful soundtrack.
Excellent presentation from Matthew Lewis
Gone Medieval is the best history podcast ever.
Not any more....
No one cries freedom after going through such torture. They never painted their faces like the Pics when at Stirling Bridge. Mostly historical crap, but action wise is most fun!
We know this from the countless examples of people who were tortured and still spat in the face of their captors. Sorry to disappoint your fake realism claims but most "romanticization" of history is absolutely real 😅
We don't know whether they painted their faces or not
My biggest gripe with his dying cry is how the hell is he supposed to push out all that air with his abdomen sliced open?
movie have nothing to do with history, other than getting people to google, "was william wallace real?" as before mel gibson made this movie, only few hundred people in the entire world knew who he was, today, many millions have searched and read up on william wallace and thanks to mel gibson the memory of william wallace will continue for ever
Freedom in its modern sense didn't even exist then.
It normally drives me insane when there’s such inaccuracies but , in this case, it was still a great movie. 🙏🙏👵🇦🇺
Love this breakdown! Finally someone who knows history, acknowledges the mistakes/changes and yet still is able to love the movie. What you say at the end is the most important - the central core of the film is right.
A lot of Brave Heart was made in Co. Kildare on the Curragh Plains not far from where i was from. My mom used to go down to watch them, she even got an Full Arrow.
She should have zig zagged then
I love these videos. Thank you for making them! Make more please!
Alexander III died in 1286. They manage to get the first line in the film totally incorrect.
The Irish character & King Edward I (Long Shanks)... best 2 in this lovable 🎬 🎞 🎥... thumbs 👍🏽 😊
I know it's not accurate but I love this movie so damn much. My all-time favourite. ❤
great stuff thank you Mathew, do Robin Hood next the Russell Crowe one
Hood is entirely fictional.
@@julianshepherd2038 I think that went right over you're head pal.
“Historians from England will say I am a liar.”
Historians from Scotland would also say that you a liar.
The one positive thing about Braveheart is that it's not as irredeemably awful as The Patriot.
Or as harmful with its propaganda. The Patriot really is one of the worst movies ever made.
Really enjoyed this, he explains it in an enjoyable way. Thanks!
Glad you brought up "Medieval" at the end. Big fan of Jan Zizka after Age of Empires.
As a Scot, I despise Braveheart. It's because of this film that every Johnny Foreigner says we should be independent. I inform them that we already rejected independence, in a legal referendum, which had the largest democratic turnout in Scottish history. They then respond "but, I watched Braveheart duhduuuuuuuh"... /facepalm
Everyone knows its fiction, once you meet a Scots man you see their all bootlicker cowards without backbones😂 most of them are happy to be England's bumboy once they get some scraps from the table
This is 100% entirely historically inaccurate. Mel Gibson wasn't even alive during that time, and that's not the actual Robert the Bruce. No, no, none of this is accurate at all.
I think they even had the audacity to use special effects and paid actors instead of showing thousands of soldiers die 🤔
Bell end
😂😂🤣
Nonce
I think the gravitas of Edward I's representation was all down to Patrick McGoohan's amazing performance.
He was no traitor to England. Wallace was Scottish, not English so I understand that he didn't recognize English royalty or their authority over Scotland. His death an treatment was unjust.
He was also a war criminal who burned down villages and indiscriminately killed anybody in England while pillaging lol. The guy murdered children and nuns lmao, he wasn't a good guy.
Great style of deep dive, please give us more
A brilliant comedy, I laughed so much I had to watch it a second time.
👍🤣
Stay away from IQ tests then, you might get sad by the result lol
Movie have nothing to do with battles or what they had on, it a movie made to make the world google "was william wallace real?" and mel gison succeeded with that, extremely well
@@niklasriva7053It was made to entertain English hating Scottish fantasists and Americans who think they are Scottish 😂
@@niklasriva7053Google didn't exist in the early nineties 😂
@@tigerland4328 Mostly just Americans and one Australian. Scots know enough about their history to be insulted by this and the way it treats their national heroes.
This film may not be accurate but it's very believable. Only Mel could pull off such an epic performance.
I also can't help but find it funny that the music used to introduce this very Scottish setting is played on the Uilleann pipes. A traditional Irish instrument.
I know, such wildly different cultures right?
This always killed me too. Beautiful music, but such a bizarre choice for a movie celebrating Scotland
Let's be honest, trying to make a film to please history buffs would be an absolute nightmare 😂
Watch the Outlaw King. It was a movie that takes on the story after William Wallace and it's a brilliant movie, yet they have been able to make it accurate.
There's definitely a middle ground between perfectly historically accurate and this revisionist nonsense
"Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World"? "The Duellists"? "The Draughtsman's Contract"? "Barry Lyndon"? "Glory"?
@@rolandscales9380 Barry Lyndon, what an outstanding film
I watched a documentary about this film. According to the historian, the only thing they got right was his name.
subscribed excellent presentation!
When it comes to inaccuracies, you are spoilt for choice with this movie.
Wallace's own seal was attached to the 'Lubeck Letter' and states that he is 'William, son of Alan Wallace'.
As always very good review :)
Great video! I love BH, one of my earliest faves, tbh. Cheers!
8:37 This scene does not take place in 1280 but in fact around 1298 as the narrator mentions that many years have passed since Wallace's father was killed
1298 is just impossible.
Because the scene was before Stirling Bridge battle and before the entire rebellion starts.
Stirling Bridge itself was 1297 and it took some time for the rebellion to be noticed and bad enough that the english would send an army.
1280 was likely a bit too early a date. But 1298 is already too late.
In fact, 1298 would already be the Battle of Falkirk.
So....maybe 1295? somewhere around that?
He also did the math wrong with Isabella´s age lol Because she was born in 1295 and she would have been -15 in 1280
For some reason, everyone seems to have issues with dates lol
For all its inaccuracies,it is still my favourite film,what we do know about him ,he was an amazing man
Nice to see ONE comment of someone who got what this movie was about, What Mel Gibson asked himself was "How have I never heard of this person before?" and then he made this movie to spread his name and now millions of people have searched up william wallace online
He was a murderer of Scottish and English for English money not a hero 😂😂😂
Lots of historical inaccuracies but the overall narrative is a real one. Decent analysis (for an Englishman ;D) and yes, Patrick McGoohan is superb as King Edward I
The Lord Of Casterly Rock, Tywin Lannister was apparently based on Longshanks
He was certainly evil enough
@@SilverScribe85 Longshanks was not evil. He was a hero in his youth and one of the strongest kings England ever had. Read some history on him .
Of course in the fantasy film, Braveheart he is portrayed differently.
@@clownofthetimes6727 So, then...if Longshanks wasn't a cruel ruler, why did Wallace and his fellow Scots want to rebel?
@@SilverScribe85because he was a foreigner and they wanted a Scot on the throne
@@SilverScribe85 Because he put John Balliol on the throne as a puppet king and when the Scots deposed him (Balliol) and created the Auld alliance with France Edward declared war and invaded.
He won this war and set up governors to rule Scotland for him.
The average Scot did not like this so they rebelled and from this we get the history of William Wallace and Robert the Bruce.
Please remember Braveheart is a fantasy film.
Please read about Edward the first( and Wallace) on wikipedia.
The Kilt could've been worn then or something similar as in Ireland we wore Lena's which was a war skirt.
One of the thing I have noticed of the one clan turned up was MacGregors. The MacGregors said they were landless....yes, they were landless...in 1600, miles off the mark, but still a good movie.
He is much fun to listen to.
The Bruce depicted in Braveheart, was the 7th Robert the Bruce, not the 17th.
The actor that plays Edward the first was a very good choice and he did it very well.
Regarding Wallace's execution, it's clear that Edward I didn't care for titles if he wanted to execute someone. A number of years earlier, he used the same method of execution for the Prince of Wales.
Thank you. A fascinating excellent review of Braveheart.
Declaration of Arbroath 1320
" It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself."
Except now really keen to get the Eu in charge.
@@dulls8475 You do know that any law passed by the EU has to be unanimous between all the countries unless in very extreme circumstances. Average Brexiteer, knows fuck all and continues to prove it daily. So yeah all the laws the little Englanders complained about, they literally voted for, the MEPs they voted for agreed to those things, including Nigel Farage.
@@ProierThanYouI'm going to say no, I don't think he does.
It’s good that we have historians like this gentleman, the amount of bs in this movie is unreal! It’s great to have someone that actually knows the story and taking the time to explain it all.
Captivating video, loved every second of it, the ads tapped me out after 22 minutes, I am trying to make diner while I listen in and I need my hands to cook, not for skiping ads.
Loved this movie. Hopefully one day someone will do a more accurate version just to see what that’s like.
Medieval National hero movies are on the rise. A Brian Boru movie would be great
I wish medieval heroic romance movies made a return like that Robin Hood movie from the 1930s or the Disney one from 1973. Or Ivanhoe. We could use some more
A Cuchulain movie would be amazing.
@@Malky24I agree
A Hugh O'Neill movie would be a much better choice I think. A lot is known historically, and it's got everything, so you wouldn't need to make anything up. He came from the oldest existing royal family in Europe. They tried to bring him up as a civilised Elizabethan English "gentleman", but he couldn't wait to revert to being a "wilde" Irishman. Then they came for him with the largest army ever assembled by the English up to that point in history. A lengthy cowboys and Indians type war ensued and he was initially successful, then full scale war occurred all over Ireland. Thousands of Spanish came and joined the fight. He was ultimately defeated, fled to Spain, and ended up penniless in Rome, and Ireland was never the same again. Everyone is in it - Elizabeth 1 - Walter Raleigh, who throws the coat over the puddle, but also massacres a load of innocent Irish people (Braveheart style) but this time it's historically accurate. You could do a really good move with Hugh O'Neill.
Now he needs to review Outlaw King.
How historically accurate is Braveheart?
Its Battle of Stirling Bridge did not include a bridge.
What a movie left memories of it for years, love the explanation follow through, great video
I spent a fall semester abroad in Grantham, England and took weekend excursions all over the Isles and Europe. I actually went to the museum where Wallace's sword is kept. That summer this movie was released and I was blown away. Also tidbit, a friend of mine actually dated the crazy Irishman when she lived in CA.
Matt thank you for the commentary . great stuff