The scene where Princess Isabella and her friend are speaking French in order to avoid being understood forgets that the English royal household' daily language was French-- as they were Norman.
They spoke Latin. Wallace changed it to French to show them, he can understand that too. Again though: latin was the lingva franca of medieval europe and it wasn't uncommon at all for nobles to be able to understand it. ... Oh I forgot: The Willy in the movie is a peasant ... :B
Edward I was tutored in English as a child, but he, as with most of the court, would have primarily spoken French. It is Edward III and Henry IV who really begin to move the language of the court to English.
"Tim, they've got your wife!" "But I'm not married!" "You are now: TO AMERICA!" "Get yourself a BODY BAG, STRAP yourself IN, start making friends THE AMERICAN WAY!"
All serious historians know the true story of William Wallace. He was 7 ft. tall, shot fireballs from his eyes, and lightning bolts from his arse. The End
Apparently someone asked Gibson why he shot the Battle of "Stirling" in a field. He told them the bridge got in the way. They replied "That's what the English found."
@callmecatalyst so what have you achieved? They set out to entertain people, which they did. No one thinks these movies are anywhere close to accurate.
@@nicelyput299 Not sure why you've included 300 in with 3 recognised classics. Lets be honest, most people who don't like Braveheart are sneering historians, people who don't like Mel Gibson or people who don't like the "politics" of the film (the English-hating, the gay guy being an effete weakling etc).
I mean, if us Australians wanted to have a jab at upper-class English twats, we can just make an accurate movie about Gallipoli instead of making shit up. Wait, Mel Gibson was in a movie about Gallipoli! One made by the director of _Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World_ in fact!
Well with continuous settlers! With the US army & their leaders taking their land !! & killing them & conning them for their land . I'm surprised a country did not support the natives!!
When we where studying the first war of Scottish independence, and the teacher couldn't be bothered teaching he put on this and told us to count the inaccuracies
The whole trope of a man wanting to live a quiet life on a farm, only for it to be destroyed by imperialists, so the man takes up arms and joins a rebellion makes me think of Star Wars.
It kills me when King Edward orders his longbowmen to fire upon the English soldiers. The real Edward Longshanks might have been a cruel man but he wasn't stupid. It just seemed like the film wanted to portray Edward as some cartoon villain instead of a real person.
They always do this people now a adays think everything in history is like a written story lol when in reality humans are unpredictable most important people have done bad things.
@@waynegoodman3345 but surely someone like Longshanks, like he is depicted in Braveheart, must have existed at some point somewhere in Medieval European history.
Definitely agree, the score is fantastic. Second best part was the actress that played Princess Isabella. Not her acting I mean she's really hot. French accents man wooof
Do you know that even the movie's title is wrong? "Braveheart" was the nickname given to King Robert the Bruce, not William Wallace. Wallace's death as a martyr actually did more for the Scottish cause than his actions ever did. Robert the Bruce was the true Scottish national hero. Outlaw King has such a better take on it. And historical accuracy. And acting. And - it's just better, okay?
Agreed, Outlaw King gave honor to the real events and gave a true screen presence to King Robbert. Yes, that was the other thing that annoyed me how they gave King Robbets title to Wallace for storytelling reasons...
Not to mention the fact that Wallace was a horrible tactician, and it was actually the other Scottish commander on the field who led Scotland to victory at the battle of Stirling Bridge.
@@jasonissel217 One thing we don't see enough of, in my opinion, is how Robert the Bruce tried to send his younger brother to invade Ireland during the First Scottish War of Independence.
+Hamza Changazi So do I; if anything, the movie is like a folktale about Wallace. Since, after the battle; he was viewed as a big figure among the Scots
Because Mel Gibson wanted a cavalry charge in the film. There was no cavalry charge at Stirling Bridge. The sudden attack by the Scots drove the English infantry back into their own cavalry and both were driven back into rhe River Forth where they were drowned or slaughtered.
@@vallidavis6914 I don't think anyone told Sir William Wallace or rhe Earl of Moray that! Clearly they needed better lawyers and a better Health & Safety team.
One of the big things you missed was brought up 10 years ago by Lindybeige: the whole film is about the FREEDOM of the Scottish commoners. Scottish independence means nothing to Scottish peasants- they had NO freedom that they wouldn't have under the English. The peasants were still under the same feudal system as the English; Scottish nobles were hardly different from the English ones; this wasn't about nations, but about dynasties.
The English followed by the Scottish Feudal system was started by William the Conquerer of Normandy after the battle of Hastings 1066 and was based on the French system....
Quite right. Call "the Bruce' by his real name, Robert (pronounce it Rho-ber) de Bruys. Norman baron. He was the Earl of Huntingdon too and as such owed fealty to Longshanks. This was as much about baronial rights as anything.
Yeah I completley agree. I also hate how it shows that every peasant in scotland rallied to fight for wallace when it was proably only nobles and minor nobles as they were the ones with wealth to afford weapons and training prior to the war and they were the ones who did profit from the war unlike the peasants who would just exchange one Feudal overlord for another.
Yeah I agree, the only use by peasants when fighting were ones from a nearby town (I think it was Falkirk but I can’t remember which battle, it might have even been under Robert the Bruce) which were positioned upon a hill to make it seem like there were a lot more soldiers than there were in reality, destroying English morale
+Dominique Hipolito I disagree, Aeneas was in it for all of 15 seconds at the end when he gets that silly "sword of troy" I like the movie but not really accurate to the iliad at all
I guess the general story is true if we mean general as really freaking general. William Wallace was a Scottish Rebel who had one major victory against the English at Sterling Bridge, lost a major battle at Falkirk then waged a guerilla campaign until he was betrayed by Scottish nobels before being tortured to death by the English. That actually happened and was the general plot of the movie. Pretty much every specific detail included in that is wrong though and any additional material is wrong.
@John Bower probably but not to this degree. Isabella was 9. Culturally in europe at the time the saying was "old enough to bleed, old enough to breed", yes exactly like the edgy joke goes nowadays. Point is because they were aware children too young couldn't, well, bear children, they didn't star the kid diddling until 12. Which is also when they got the "right" to marry (note the quotes), before that point it was a mere bethoral, meaning if any sex took place it was both illegal and highly heretical. So no, he would not have diddled isabella. Now if he was a muslim, those had the age or marriage at 6, so then he might... seriously islamic traditions related to sex and marriage were fucked up at the time, even for contemporary christians.
Maybe he should make a movie on an Absolute Mad Lad like the guys Count Dankula covers. Maybe make a movie based on a guy in history but never acknowledge it
I remember when this film came out leaving the theatre feeling ripped off and thinking “they may well take our cash but they’ll never take our critical thinking”
Braveheart was the movie that made me realize that you can only take "Based on True Story" movie or TV series so much for granted and that thanks to videos like this, we can see just how really accurate these movies and TV shows are!
@@amirhankhatsiev1035 There are many reasons for this being proven otherwise. 1) The Battle of Stirling is actually called the Battle of Stirling Bridge because the battle took place by a bridge that helped the Scots win the battle! 2) Scottish kilts weren't invented until the 18th century. This war took place in the late 13th & early 14th century! 3) The blue war paint was never something Williams Wallace wore into battle. This was something the Celtic & German tribes did back during the days of the Roman Empire to frighten their enemies. I'll stop there for now, what's your proof that this guy wasn't telling the truth?
BRAVEHEART one of my all time favorite movies. Saying that I have watched it many times and it never gets old. Your commentary is very informative I thoroughly enjoyed it. I'm looking forward to following your channel. I love history and you're right Hollywood does stretch the shit out of the truth boiling everything down to the bottom line of the the amount of revenue a film can or hopefully will generate. Glad I found you, not boring, enthusiastic and straight shooting delivery of content.
When I was in the 9th grade there were two girls in my art class talking about how hot Mel Gibson was, and how they had no guilt watching Braveheart because it was a history lesson. When I bought up the first line from the movie they called me a prude. I'm glad someone else finally pointed out the fact that the movie opens by saying, "what follows is probably rubbish."
Another inaccuracy, although technically not historical, was that the music we hear in the movie is played on the Irish Uillean Pipes and not the Scottish Bag Pipes. Supposedly this was because the Uillean Pipes fitted better in an orchestra than the Bag Pipes.
As you say, not a historical inaccuracy as the modern Scottish war pipes are the sole survivor (in Scotland) of the many historical variations on bagpipes. In Scotland the war pipes, survived as a way to inspire Scottish regiments in battle (i.e. meant to be loud and be heard over long distances) and therefore they totally wouldn't fit with an orchestra. A different relationship with England meant the Irish had little local military and therefore a form of bagpipes designed for playing indoors survived into the modern era. Bagpipes very similar to the modern Irish form would have been entirely accurate for just about any country in Europe throughout the middle ages.
Also speaking of music, the tune to "Black Is the Color of my True Love's Hair" as used in the soundtrack was written in the early 20th century by John Jacob Niles, an American.
As a history nerd, the movie makes me sob. As a movie nerd, this movie makes me shed a tear. (I'll admit it; the Bannockburn ending scene can legitimately make me misty-eyed.)
As long as we view it for what it is... Sometimes it's ok to enjoy a good film and detach from reality. There isn't a single accurate "War" film anyway.
@@kimberleysmith818 Well I don't know, the movie recreates many actual events. The execution of Wallaces wife. The execution of Sheriff Hesselrig at Lanark. The battle of Stirling wasn't logistically possible to recreate on a bridge so it was decided to use an open field. Also for cinematic purposes. The battle of Falkirk, Wallaces capture and torture and execution was recreated. Obviously 700+ years might dim the exact details But it's also a movie not a historical document. I don't know why it gets so much stick about its accuracy when it surprisingly did recreate quite a few actual events.
@@elenarodriguez7809 I once saw a historian describe the use of kilts in Braveheart (which are worn incorrectedly, no less, since they're clearly supposed to be belted plaids) to be akin to a movie about the American Revolution where everybody wears modern business suits, except they all have the jackets on backwards.
War paint was worn in Scotland way before William Wallace so putting that out of the picture is purely idiotic. Soldiers also wrapped tartans around themselves before the supposed “invention” date. Use your head, not Wikipedia
Don’t worry, as someone from Scotland, we don’t think your hating on it cause your English. We either hate it or laugh at how inaccurate it is. Anyone who has at most had history in secondary knows how stupid it is and sometimes younger. I grew up near Loudoun hill so the Scottish wars of independence were practically drilled into my head
As a Englishman and former history buff, I hated it. It was offensive to both cultures, and oversimplified the English and Scotts to cartoon-level good guys and horrible bad guys. As a film lover, I thought it was OK. The story and scale of the film was admirable, but obviously done for Hollywood to make a rags to Jesus story. And there were other historical films from the same year like Sense and Sensibility, Apollo 13 and Nixon. Of course they're not very accurate either, but they took their time showing the flaws and development of the main characters and villains, and they showed events unfold in a naturalistic way not from act 1: introduction to act 2: conflict. And by the end, what I really loved about them was it being your decision if you rooted for the MC's or despised the villains.
It doesn't even matter, even in the film the Scottish lost and the film itself made out like the Scots were idiots. In reality the English were scarred shitless of the Scots
Donald Mackay There has only been 2 wars between Scotland and England. Scotland has won both of them. There have been many other conflicts over the years but not wars as such as the Wars of Independence. The Scots won more battles than the English in the 1st war. Especially after 1306. The English won more battles in the Second war of Independence. However, the Scots still won the war. As a Scotsman, you should brush up on your history.
@@ALBA-js3um scots lost the second war of independence as England moved onto fight France. Also the Scottish lost badly in the battle of flodden and pinkie 30 years apart from eachother where most of the Scottish nobility was wiped out.
Annette M. FYI I remember reading that the Scottish enlightenment thinker wasn’t nationalists. If true I can speculate they for that reason should not have like this movie. But as you know here we really, really miss the point. The point was of course to make fun of Hollywood's idea that battles are won by inspirational speeches. To take a newer example Wonder woman apparently includes an example of that.
sorry but rural natives were wiped out (90 percent) by small pox (which killed 400k europeans annually) , flu,and measles (which killed millions of europeans as well).
As a movie buff, I like Braveheart as a good yarn, nothing more. But as a Scot heavily into my country's history, it's a huge embarrassment. I also worry about the number of Scots who think it's accurate, and you summed it up, that it cheapens Wallace. Also, as an Edinburgher, I can't handle Edinburgh Castle depicted as a wooden-pallisade fort on a flat plane. Edinburgh Castle stands atop a basalt rock outcrop - once a volcanic vent, at the head of the inclined ridge on which the city was built, and which forms Edinburgh's 'Royal Mile'. BTW, Falkirk is pronounced "fall-kirk". A minor thing, I know, but it still grates on the nerves a wee bit to hear a Robertson mispronounce it. Oh, and the archers at Falkirk were Welsh, not English. They almost refused to fight for Edward Longshanks after a fight between them and the English broke out after they landed at Dunbar. Otherwise, a great review, and I actually learned a few things I wasn't aware of.
Very interesting, as an American my knowledge of European history is very limited. I was told from somewhere that Robert the Bruce played a bigger part in Scottish history than William Wallace. But I could be wrong.
It actually is true that Wallace stated that he never declared allegiance to King Edward and thus could not be considered a traitor at his trial. In fact, one of the reasons for the massive uproar after his execution was because he was given a traitors punishment when he never officially declared allegiance to England
The main problem is that people buy into the myth. Braveheart has perpetuated a false belief in Scottish popular culture that Robert the Bruce was some sort of Judas, when this was simply not the case. This is why that film is so damaging, it prevents everyone (regardless of their national identity) from seeing how great Robert the Bruce the man really was. He was able to achieve such greatness in his lifetime against what should have been impossible odds. It really is an inspirational story. Yet Braveheart shows him as some weak side character, this is the definition of a travesty.
@murray1234567891011 To be fair, I don't think Braveheart portrays him like a "cartoon villain". He's easily the most fleshed out/sympathetic of the Scottish nobles, and we do see him get a bit of redemption at the end when he leads the Scots against the English once again.
I am a descendant of william wallace. I also have a degee i history. Innacurate...romantisized ? Yeah. Still...a pretty good movie. Movies are for escape like a good book and it was good for that at least. Hollywood will never get history movies right. Life is messy at best , not a romatic story of a brave knight protecting the princess( and not raping her). Im about to watch Mary queen of Scott's knowing full well its B.S. but hey...it looks good.
I know, I know….. this movie is a train wreck of inaccuracies, but I will ALWAYS love it! My Scottish ancestors fought at Bannockburn and I’m still not bothered. The soundtrack alone is capable of drawing you in emotionally.
The soundtrack is absolutely amazing. Played partially by Irish instrument instead of Scottish. But just another thing that can be forgiven for its beauty in my opinion. For it appears that I, too, am a pleb lol😊
“People who understand love history. Those who don’t love history don’t understand it.” History isn’t facts and numbers and ridged timelines, it’s _people_, and people are inherently interesting, compelling, and deserve to be represented accurately.
Wait..... are you saying that people can be represented a bit more dramatically to tell a story and get an emotional response and exact dates etc. aren't important or are you saying they are?? I'm confused..
@@8bitakvids people are inherently interesting. Showing their stories as accurately as possible should be the _ideal_ with the reality allowing some small room for fudging.
I'd agree with that. It's definitely a fun watch with some great scenes in it. It used to be one of my favorite movies and while the inaccuracies kinda piss me off I can still enjoy watching it as long as I treat it more like historical fiction.
As a Scotsman, the inaccuracies piss me off, but Braveheart was really fun to watch. No doubt did they know the history but made some changes to make it into a better movie. If historical films all went exactly by what happened, they wouldnt be as good.
@@fleshautomatonanimatedbyne6327 they gave it the required love story to pull on everyone's heart strings. You are way more involved knowing the guy's new wife had her throat slit versus the theory he possibly had his land taken. It's something most can relate to as far as having been in love before. Better? I don't know, but for some I'm very sure they would like the love story version. That's just one example I can think of
@@fleshautomatonanimatedbyne6327 To be honest, on second thoughts, the changes probably didnt help the movie. Regardless, they manged to pull it off and its a good movie.
With all of the inaccuracies in this movie, I'm supprised you didn't mention the most glaring issue: William Wallace was never called "Brave Heart", in fact that was Robert the Bruce's cognomen.
What was missing in Mel Gibson's film 'Braveheart' was Hobbits, a Ranger (Strider) from the north, Elves, Dwarves and the power of an evil Ring. That just might have had this film a bit more convincing to the truth historically.
The truth was that William Wallace led Scotland to independence from England in the 13th century. That's all that's needed, unless you're a pretentious snob.
Apparently a local approached Gibson and asked where's the bridge. Gibson said it got in the way and the local replied aye that's what the English found out
I love how most Mel Gibson action films he has a wife or daughter or son and they are killed horribly and he looks up at the sky and goes “NOOOO” then goes round killing people and in the case of Braveheart he gets over his dead wife very fast and sleeps with that other lady very fast.
In every Hollywood action movie the male (90% usually white, 10% black, and never Asian or another race) protagonist usually has sex with a female character. That’s how audiences know they’re a stud, aside from kicking everyone’s asses. It’s a hackneyed trope.
@@TheMasterhomaster what doesn’t make sense with Braveheart however is historically he never meets the princess and she was 3 at the time so it’s pointless.
What bothers me is that they misrepresented the English nobility because they all were fluent in French. So the French chicks speaking French hoping the English don’t understand them is idiotic.
Inaccurate? Yes. But idiotic? in reality, the English soldiers would have been speaking middle English, which would be impossible for modern audiences to understand. The nobility would speak French, and the Scots would be speaking Gaelic. Does anyone really think that it would have been feasible to do this film in original languages? This History Buff guy really has it in for Mel Gibson. I like Dances with wolves, but Braveheart is a superior film.
will m who are you replying to? Matt only pointed out the idiocy of using French as a "secret" language, i see NOTHING implying that he thinks the different languages of the time should've been used accurately. Only that that part of the plot should've been better written.
17:19 Random Extra on Set: "Where's the bridge?" Gibson: "The film crew found it too difficult to work around." Random Extra: "Aye, that's what the English found." ;)
Interesting, do you have a source for that? I can't find one. Googling 'Robert the Bruce Braveheart' and similar phrases just returns pictures of Angus Macfadyen and articles about the movie.
Arthur Nichols. That’s it. all the Scottish nobles were of Norman decent, and so were the English nobles . And de Wallace he was from Welsh Norman ancestry. Longshanks was from the Plantagenet dynasty and they were a French noble family that married into the Norman kingdom over a French territory dispute. That brought England centuries of war with France. Hardly any of these people were pure English or Scots, and were of the same blood. These American versions of British history blame everything on the English, but never tell the story of the Norman invasion of England which changed British and Irish history for ever.
Becoming a fan for the second time around. Love the shredding of this "telling of history". Even though I was born an Englishman, Scotland took my heart when I visited in the 90s...
As a historian, I agree this movie is just......bad. But as a movie buff, I truly love this movie. A movie doesnt have to be historically accurate to be good.
I've been burned so many times by biopics that I don't believe anything anymore. Every time I watch a biopic, instead of concentrating on the plot I'm always thinking "Did this really happen? Did that really happen? I can't wait for this movie to be over so I can check the wiki". That's not the viewing experience that you want your audience to have. They can't really blame the audience for feeling this way, it's like a "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" situation.
@@GIBBO4182 You know what's really funny? The nickname "Braveheart" refers to King Robert the Bruce, not William Wallace, so the name of the movie is inaccurate too.
@austin wool i guess it doesn't if you're just looking at it as an action movie, but i don't think your complaining matters on a channel that makes videos about history and historical accuracy in movies.
It's more interesting for the viewer to see varied costumes and the battle scenes would be harder to follow if each side was composed of a huge amount of identical looking peasants and a much smaller number of knights wearing the same armour but each wearing individual surcoats.
The kilts are a little silly, but they did wrap tartans around their armour and not the face paint argument again…Christ. People were wearing face paint for centuries before the 1300’s. Just because some dweeb in the 21st century posted some supposed “research” on the internet doesn’t make it fact. Here’s a tip, stop using a multimillion dollar corporation like Google for your history
@@emilfrederiksen.1622 "who cares" apparently YOU care a little to much about a 2 year old comment, from a random fukwit(me) online. I have MY own issues with the mindset of those who wrote/made the movie. But apparently YOU have issue with ANYONE who can't shut their brain off during movies. Get over it.
Unpopular opinion: I actually really like this film, not because it portrays Williams's time accurately as thats clearly not the case. But because i actually understand what the screenwriter was trying to do and it worked for me. I remember watching this when i was younger with my dad and me being of a very young age didnt care/understand the history of the movie or its inaccuracies. I simply saw a man fighting for his freedom and felt his energy and emotions through Mels performance. Fastward to now when im in my 20s do i still enjoy this film? Of course. Before anyone asks, yes im an Englishman and have no problem with this film 'sticking' it to us, wars never innocent and both sides have their dark sides. Take away all the historical ties/attempts and this film can suffice as a non-fiction movie. (At least in my opinion)
@@user-gk3yh2wf1fwhat a ridiculous statement. The English empire committed untold amounts of atrocities that would make you sick if you heard it. This movie all though most likely not authentic, accurately portrays the attitude of English imperialism.
I like this film very much, but I think they should have made it explicitly clear that it was based off of a work of fiction, instead of saying it as "oh those bloody english won't tell you the REAL tale of glorious god savior giant protector warrior man his great honorable did-i-mention-savior WILLIAM WALLACE"
Like 300? I understand the bullshit that film pulled because it was made clear the events we're shown are exaggerated due to it being told to others from a Spartans perspective.
I wonder how accurate lord of the rings is. I remember when we defeated the forces of evil in new Zealand. Thank god Gandalf was sent from the magical kingdom of the United States to look for Sauron's weapons of mass destruction.
will be interesting to see you do Outlaw King which actually goes for accuracy as opposed to Braveheart which aimed for a modern romanticized version of an already romanticized poem.
its so good! there are some things that aren't perfect but compared to this trash i was very impressed. I felt their attention to detail really showed how much they cared about being true to the history. More importantly it proved that you can produce an amazing film whilst also being historical accurate the two are not mutually exclusive!
@@callahanslegionnaire3090 Agreed - was really impressed and in my mind Outlaw King tarnished movies that take countless liberties with history. Clearly a movie can look great while be true to the times.
@@nathans5347 I enjoyed the film. The battle is actually fairly accurate, minus the fight with Edward. Not only was Edward not there, but nobody in their right mind would let the enemy king walk away. I am sure they wanted an emotional climax, but letting Edward go when he has Robert's family captive is asinine, especially given how many YEARS later it would be before Robert's wife was freed.
Yeah but aren't we supposed to be outraged because the lead role isn't played by a Scot? I guess casting issues only apply to blacks, Chinese, Japanese, gays, trans; basically any role that isn't a straight, white male.
Accuracy? There's a scene where Robert Bruce goes to Berwick-upon-Tweed to deliver taxes to the English and there are black Africans in town garbed in Caribbean-style Carnival clothing. What? Also, at the final battle, Edward II and Robert Bruce fight a one-on-one sword battle. I also thought the clothing was a little too clean and brightly-colored for the High Middle Ages. "Braveheart" may be historical rot, but I never lost my sense of belief except when William Wallace manages to invade a castle and ride through it on horseback (and then high dive from the battlements into the moat).
Wallace was born in Elderslie, by Paisley. He was the second son of a nobleman. As his brother would have taken this father's place, a noble's second son was often sent off for education in the church. Wallace was educated at Paisley Abbey. (That's what I learned working at Paisley Abbey anyway!)
I've always thought that the extra wearing the sunglasses during a battle scene was kind of historically inaccurate too. Not to mention the automobile driving across the shot in the background...
ha ! i was ten when my mother and i watched it and i remember her saying ‘ this is so stupid. he’s clean shaven in every single scene no matter what. how the hell are you finding time to shave , Mel ? thanks. i thoroughly enjoyed this.
Never watched this looking for a history lesson. Just a good film that was well written, acted and directed. On that it delivers. It's a classic in my house.
@@ryaffus7208 Yeah, but it's still very confusing and "insanely" is normally used in a postive and not in negative way. If sarcasm was intended, then insanely was probably the wrong choice of adjective to use here and the emphasis in his voice doesn't really imply sarcasm. I think it was a simple mistake in wordchoice due to the fact, that he was pissed of at the inaccuracy!^^
@@WRGOP Well his race makes no difference to the many inaccuracies in both of those awful films. Should he hate them because they are inaccurate? Thats another question. But the clear bullshit in these films, as well as the obvious anti-English sentiment they put out there is simply a fact, regardless of what race a person is.
12:35 - 13:05 It's also bad Latin. It should be called "prima nox," not "prima nocta." Also, the comparison of William Wallace to Robin Hood becomes uncannily specific when you realize that both legendary figures seem to have had a love interest named Marian inserted into the mythos in later editions.
+lucas scavello It tells a great story, with the same narrative that Gibson's pulled in a number of his other movies. As the maker of the video pointed out, the God-fearing pacifistic family man is pulled into conflict with the cartoony bad-guys after they do something to his family. He then goes on a Rambo-esque rampage and draws endearing everyday schmoes to his cause, and together they give the mustache twirling villains what's coming to them. Basically, establish your protagonist as the clear good-guy, establish your antagonist as the clear bad-guy, and then let the script play itself out. It was the same with the Patriot, Braveheart, We Were Soldiers not so much, Gibson either has more respect for the North Vietnamese than he does for the Jews and English, or he didn't have much of a hand in their character development in the script writing. The Passion of the Christ is another clear example, with the express propaganda purpose of re-establishing the charges of deicide against the Jewish people in rejection of the rulings of Vatican II. The Mad Maxes do the same thing, as does Apocolypto. While the former is a better apocalypse film, the latter is a disturbing justification of Western genocide in the Americas.
+lucas scavello if you are a fan of literature I think this is one of the best historical fictional films out there. It is filled with symbolism, biblical allusions and allegories. Do not just take a review and based your opinion after it.
Hi History Buff, really enjoy your videos! Another inaccuracy about Clan tartans is that these weren't really a thing for Clans. Yeah some Clans did have preferences for tartans and such but didn't have a specific type, this is merely an invention of the 19th century and romantics. That of course doesn't make tartans fraudulent or anything and the one you wore looks very nice! X
I saw this as young teenager, and loved it so much and cried at his execution and got really emotional, and leaving the theatre I felt like I rarely had seeing any movie before that. When i grew older and learned about the true history, I actually felt betrayed and I can't watch the movie anymore. Soundtrack is phenomenal still though.
The bottom line is that Wallace's efforts ultimately set up The Bruce for Bannockburn, which prevented the English conquering Scotland; and that is undisputed.
Because it didn't happen at all. Our channel master, Mr. Hodges of the Bobertson Clan, already stated in this video that Princess Isabella was both the following when William Wallace was executed: 1. 9 years old 2. still living in France
You mean the future queen who wasn't even in England yet at the time of Wallace? And she would've been about 10 at the time. Now somebody should do a movie about her. Isabella was something else and became known as the she-wolf of France. She came by it naturally. Her father was Phillip the Fair, the French King who destroyed the Knights Templar.
Appreciate the self-control while trying to explain the history of it all, with how much you go into detail sometimes it feels like being betrayed live when you go trough these kind of movies.
I think the actual story of William Wallace would make a far better film: a small force out smarting a full army, but, saying that, I think the better film would actually be about Robert the Bruce, how he actually gained freedom, his pike tactics and an emotional scene in the famous cave where he is inspired by a spider failing to make a web but persevering..
I'm really proud of my Scottish roots too, which is WHY I have a problem with Braveheart. It's like that episode of Futurama with Whalers on the Moon - Not just inaccurate, but reductive and weird.
I appreciate the honesty, however if it wasn't for that movie I would have never knew about William Wallace but it definitely got me interested in history. I did my own research as a 14 year old boy and I was surprised to find out the truth. Mel Gibson still rocks in my book. I do enjoy your channel keep showing stuff please. History is my favorite subject.
The funny thing about this film is that it makes Scottish history more confusing then it already is and it’s the most famous decision of Scottish history
Apparently the Irish joining up with the Scots at the Battle of Falkirk was an inside joke , as the battle scene was filmed in Ireland so the "Scottish" extras were mostly Irish.
@Maria Kelly Exactly, my dad served in the Irish army. He wasn't involved in the shooting but knew plenty who were. The Irish defence forces made up all of the extras on both sides and on the day they refused to fight unless the Irish were depicted to fight AGAINST the English. 😂😂😂😂 Braveheart isn't supposed to be accurate, its just a big beautiful mythical struggle for self determination, and the Irish joining the Scots was a beautiful addition to the film.
Btw, that's why the extras are tearing absolute lumps out of each other. Give a soldier an excuse to kick the shite out of his mate and he'll take it 😂😂😂😂
There was no Stirling bridge in the movie.The Bridge was central to the whole battle.Andrew Murray who was just as much of a hero as Wallace doesn’t even get a mention.
What you say, and most of the criticisms in the video, are perfectly true. But what is worse is that the film contains not merely events that _didn't_ happen, but that _couldn't_ have happened: events and things that simply insult the audience's intelligence. This is MUCH worse than merely inaccurate history. The most obvious one is the pathetic way in which William Wallace's (or, more accurately, Mel Gibson's) men are "armed" and "armoured." This isn't what a Scottish army in the late 13th century looked like! This is a bloody Glasgow street gang transported back in time! It's an insult to the entire Scottish nation. The real William Wallace fought at the head of men who were properly armed (just like their English foes, although with less logistical back-up), properly armoured, and (in the case of the nobles) mounted on real medieval knights' horses, not the damn ponies used in the film! If the real Wallace's force had been like this, they would have been massacred, bridge or no damn bridge. And to imply that the English army (one of the most-feared armies in the whole of Europe - just ask the French!) could have been defeated by this rabble is an insult to the entire English nation. Fuck off, Gibson, you drunken, anti-Semitic, religious lunatic!
They mention him as Moray, using the classical spelling. He's one of the nobles that assists in the first battle by riding around behind the archers, but then later betrays Wallace. Wallace rides his horse into his bedchamber and kills him with a mace and chain in the movie, as opposed to his being mortally wounded during the battle and dying later that year (November, 1297)
War paint on the face is from tribal culture and white people are the only people on Earth that have no aboriginal tribes. Those people never painted their faces. It was just added to the movie to make him look more "bad ass".
Little fact About Edward 1st The reason he was nicknamed longshanks is because he was in real life 6ft2 and in medieval times the average height of a full grown mam wae 5ft7 so for the time Edward was a giant
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
The scene where Princess Isabella and her friend are speaking French in order to avoid being understood forgets that the English royal household' daily language was French-- as they were Norman.
Good point - almost anyone of "class" in England OR Scotland would have understood her perfectly.
English was the peasants language ;)
which is what Wallace does in the movie- pretty much all the Scottish nobles would have had some knowledge of French.
They spoke Latin. Wallace changed it to French to show them, he can understand that too. Again though: latin was the lingva franca of medieval europe and it wasn't uncommon at all for nobles to be able to understand it. ... Oh I forgot: The Willy in the movie is a peasant ... :B
Edward I was tutored in English as a child, but he, as with most of the court, would have primarily spoken French. It is Edward III and Henry IV who really begin to move the language of the court to English.
"I'm a man of peace, I'm done killin', I wanna raise a family!"
"That's just it Tim, they've got your family!"
"NOOOO!!!!!"
"Tim, they've got your wife!"
"But I'm not married!"
"You are now: TO AMERICA!"
"Get yourself a BODY BAG, STRAP yourself IN, start making friends THE AMERICAN WAY!"
If the English just stopped messing with Mel Gibson's families they would still have an Empire.
GTA
Tim I got toffee stuck in toof
Rated PG for Patriotic Garbage
All serious historians know the true story of William Wallace. He was 7 ft. tall, shot fireballs from his eyes, and lightning bolts from his arse.
The End
someone's played roll the boulder
Grandpa the Grey that sounds more like a famorian than a Scott
@@imlonelypleasehelp5443 oh sweet you like Celtic mythology too?
Alternate Timeline Theories & Games A.T.T.G it’s honestly one of the most interesting mythologies I have ever studied
Does that mean George Washington chopped down that cherry tree?
Apparently someone asked Gibson why he shot the Battle of "Stirling" in a field. He told them the bridge got in the way. They replied "That's what the English found."
“Historians from England will say I am a liar”
Historians from Scotland and pretty much everywhere else say the same thing.
@callmecatalyst so what have you achieved? They set out to entertain people, which they did. No one thinks these movies are anywhere close to accurate.
@callmecatalyst you're english aren't you
@Keith Marshall this man’s on another level
@@Ricky_Spanishh Well he isn’t a Jew hating alcoholic
@callmecatalyst its a lengendary film. Historic accuracy may be off, but its still an epic movie
Braveheart is one of those movies that is damn near perfect as a piece of fiction but total hogwash as non-fiction.
Your comment is one of those comments that is 200% Perfect!!!!!
Exactly, people should approach it like they would Star Wars or something of that nature.
You could change the names England and Scotland to Brettonia and Rohan and it could have been a good fantasy film.
@@nicelyput299 Then you understand cinema as much as Braveheart understands history.
@@nicelyput299 Not sure why you've included 300 in with 3 recognised classics.
Lets be honest, most people who don't like Braveheart are sneering historians, people who don't like Mel Gibson or people who don't like the "politics" of the film (the English-hating, the gay guy being an effete weakling etc).
William Wallace is actually a T1000 and is a time travelling Scottish cyborg android killing machine.
“Haggis la vista baby”
@Matsimus 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂. Fuck you I spray Mt. Dew out of my nose. Brilliant.
Matsimus makes more sense then what the movie said
Matsimus belter mate 😂😂
Hey brother nice to see you on this channel 2 of my favorite UK youtubers you guys should collab sometime.
That's awesome
A friend of mine told me, that Braveheart and The Patriot are an angry Australians jab towards English nobility. Good way to sum it up.
Another reason to like them
That’s funny, as Robert the Bruce’s family origins are Norman, as was the case with much of the English nobility, and Wallace may have been Welsh.
@msmissy6888and enormously good fun.
I mean, if us Australians wanted to have a jab at upper-class English twats, we can just make an accurate movie about Gallipoli instead of making shit up.
Wait, Mel Gibson was in a movie about Gallipoli! One made by the director of _Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World_ in fact!
@msmissy6888 They did however get the nature of the British imperialism accurate.
"Ah, if only the Native Americans believed in freedom, then maybe they would've won"
That line gets me every time
SehlraC lol.
Nah...they were too busy killing each other b4 1492
Well with continuous settlers! With the US army & their leaders taking their land !! & killing them & conning them for their land . I'm surprised a country did not support the natives!!
just win lamo soo simple
Eh they were too busy infighting to see the enemy over yonder lol.
When we where studying the first war of Scottish independence, and the teacher couldn't be bothered teaching he put on this and told us to count the inaccuracies
The whole trope of a man wanting to live a quiet life on a farm, only for it to be destroyed by imperialists, so the man takes up arms and joins a rebellion makes me think of Star Wars.
And the patriot
Luke Skywalker is seven feet tall!
Its literally the story of mankind
Luke didn't enjoy the farm, he was planning on joining the imperial academy.
Star Wars is more historically accurate.
It kills me when King Edward orders his longbowmen to fire upon the English soldiers. The real Edward Longshanks might have been a cruel man but he wasn't stupid. It just seemed like the film wanted to portray Edward as some cartoon villain instead of a real person.
They always do this people now a adays think everything in history is like a written story lol when in reality humans are unpredictable most important people have done bad things.
He was a bad man obviously he's just played as a pantomime villian in this movie.
@@waynegoodman3345 everyone is bad if you look far enough there are no heroes in history only people that take advantage of a situation.
It killed his men too- zing!
@@waynegoodman3345 but surely someone like Longshanks, like he is depicted in Braveheart, must have existed at some point somewhere in Medieval European history.
The most inaccurate thing about this movie is that Mel Gibson is in it. I’m 100% sure Mel Gibson wasn’t born in the Middle Ages
Many people think he was, however they mistake him for the famous Scott named Gibson Mel who infamously disrupted English supply lines.
Oh boy some people will get woooshed
Well he certainly has the right mentality, so, maybe?
Mel Gibson was born in the future after society collapsed.
80%. Now I'm questioning it.
Best part of Braveheart was the musical score. Very moving.
this film made gave me a bowel movement
Nah. The best part was the end credits.
Nope.
Definitely agree, the score is fantastic.
Second best part was the actress that played Princess Isabella. Not her acting I mean she's really hot. French accents man wooof
I also love the music... Unique and original.
Do you know that even the movie's title is wrong? "Braveheart" was the nickname given to King Robert the Bruce, not William Wallace. Wallace's death as a martyr actually did more for the Scottish cause than his actions ever did. Robert the Bruce was the true Scottish national hero.
Outlaw King has such a better take on it. And historical accuracy. And acting. And - it's just better, okay?
Agreed, Outlaw King gave honor to the real events and gave a true screen presence to King Robbert. Yes, that was the other thing that annoyed me how they gave King Robbets title to Wallace for storytelling reasons...
No Braveheart was better.
Not to mention the fact that Wallace was a horrible tactician, and it was actually the other Scottish commander on the field who led Scotland to victory at the battle of Stirling Bridge.
@@jasonissel217 One thing we don't see enough of, in my opinion, is how Robert the Bruce tried to send his younger brother to invade Ireland during the First Scottish War of Independence.
Do you enjoy lying to yourself and others? You’re a disgrace
Can we agree that James Horner did an amazing job with the score.
Yes, as the score is the only good thing about this film.
Amazing OST ❤❤
Yes beautiful music but used the Irish pipes - not Scottish bag pipes in the themes!
It’s an incredible score! Yes agree
We absolutely can 🔥
For all its numerous historical inaccuracies, I still love this movie.
+Hamza Changazi So do I; if anything, the movie is like a folktale about Wallace.
Since, after the battle; he was viewed as a big figure among the Scots
+sadlobster1 Never let the truth get in the way of a good story eh?
+thefreeatlast arefreeatlast Didn't stop Shakespeare.
+Hamza Changazi Or Goebbels.
+thefreeatlast arefreeatlast or henryk
The actual battle of Stirling Bridge sounds 100x more badass than some generic open field fight. How did they not go with that???
Because Mel Gibson wanted a cavalry charge in the film. There was no cavalry charge at Stirling Bridge. The sudden attack by the Scots drove the English infantry back into their own cavalry and both were driven back into rhe River Forth where they were drowned or slaughtered.
Insurance would not cover a river crossing battle.
@@vallidavis6914
I don't think anyone told Sir William Wallace or rhe Earl of Moray that!
Clearly they needed better lawyers and a better Health & Safety team.
Mel Gibson has stated that filing ten battle on the bridge was too hard so for better shots he moved it to an open field.
I’m sure I heard in a documentary that Mel wanted a bridge scene for the battle but they ran out time & budget.
One of the big things you missed was brought up 10 years ago by Lindybeige: the whole film is about the FREEDOM of the Scottish commoners. Scottish independence means nothing to Scottish peasants- they had NO freedom that they wouldn't have under the English. The peasants were still under the same feudal system as the English; Scottish nobles were hardly different from the English ones; this wasn't about nations, but about dynasties.
The English followed by the Scottish Feudal system was started by William the Conquerer
of Normandy after the battle of Hastings 1066 and was based on the French system....
Quite right. Call "the Bruce' by his real name, Robert (pronounce it Rho-ber) de Bruys. Norman baron. He was the Earl of Huntingdon too and as such owed fealty to Longshanks. This was as much about baronial rights as anything.
Nobody who makes these historical movies gives a fuck about the common man's life- it's all about "great men."
Yeah I completley agree. I also hate how it shows that every peasant in scotland rallied to fight for wallace when it was proably only nobles and minor nobles as they were the ones with wealth to afford weapons and training prior to the war and they were the ones who did profit from the war unlike the peasants who would just exchange one Feudal overlord for another.
Yeah I agree, the only use by peasants when fighting were ones from a nearby town (I think it was Falkirk but I can’t remember which battle, it might have even been under Robert the Bruce) which were positioned upon a hill to make it seem like there were a lot more soldiers than there were in reality, destroying English morale
It's funny how 24 minutes was once considered an "extra long review" when u consider how long his reviews are now. (And I'm very grateful)
Now he made 4 videos on Narcos Season 1 and 2… about 40 minutes each though
you should do Troy next, I know it can't be accurate, Sean Bean didn't even die in that movie.
+holf99 it was actually quite faithful to the Iliad.
+Dominique Hipolito I disagree, Aeneas was in it for all of 15 seconds at the end when he gets that silly "sword of troy" I like the movie but not really accurate to the iliad at all
+Matthew Sunday lol I take it back. It was half faithful to the textbook, not the poem itself. Explains everything.
+holf99 But Troy is legend within itself, I don't really know if it counts as history.
+holf99 You do know that Troy is based on a poem right? i.e not history but legend.
So you’re telling me basically the only true thing in the movie is that William Wallace was Scottish correct? LOL
Yes
Actually there are some historians who claim he has Welsh ties lol
William washer machine was Dutch
No. He was Scottishish
I guess the general story is true if we mean general as really freaking general. William Wallace was a Scottish Rebel who had one major victory against the English at Sterling Bridge, lost a major battle at Falkirk then waged a guerilla campaign until he was betrayed by Scottish nobels before being tortured to death by the English.
That actually happened and was the general plot of the movie. Pretty much every specific detail included in that is wrong though and any additional material is wrong.
“Unless William Wallace was a teleporting pedophile-“
You can’t confirm he wasn’t especially not in this movie.
@John Bower Nobody knows. The True Story of William Wallace will never be known. All Accounts were destroyed by Edward I.
that would be like the most evil thing to exist
I find that hard to belive . There is so little documented about him yet we know this
@John Bower probably but not to this degree. Isabella was 9. Culturally in europe at the time the saying was "old enough to bleed, old enough to breed", yes exactly like the edgy joke goes nowadays. Point is because they were aware children too young couldn't, well, bear children, they didn't star the kid diddling until 12. Which is also when they got the "right" to marry (note the quotes), before that point it was a mere bethoral, meaning if any sex took place it was both illegal and highly heretical. So no, he would not have diddled isabella. Now if he was a muslim, those had the age or marriage at 6, so then he might... seriously islamic traditions related to sex and marriage were fucked up at the time, even for contemporary christians.
The Spanish Inquisition didn’t expect to see you on the comments...wait
Mel Gibson: The problem with historical movies is... its full of history!
Maybe he should make a movie on an Absolute Mad Lad like the guys Count Dankula covers. Maybe make a movie based on a guy in history but never acknowledge it
Irony of this review is that the movie literally opens with, "Historians from England will say I am a liar . . ."
Chris Whitehead hes from Schottland so
He lies
I guess you missed the bit about his family being Scottish then.🙄
@@zenon9924 yes we saw the video, the irony is still funny
Isn't that a red flag from the start.
As a scotsman, I applaud this review 👏
Do you talk like the mini schnauzer from lady and the tramp ?
Naw, we talk like this ya BAWBAG
Not surprised with the way it portrays Robert The Bruce as a sneak.
Are you also descended from the Clan Donnachaidh?
Good review but the way he pronounced Falkirk makes me cringe 😂
I remember when this film came out leaving the theatre feeling ripped off and thinking “they may well take our cash but they’ll never take our critical thinking”
Muttley 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
Can you laugh for us Muttley?
Sean Osborn no! hehehehhehehe
:D
Only thing good braveheart does is it's soundtrack but a good soundtrack can't carry a bad film
Braveheart was the movie that made me realize that you can only take "Based on True Story" movie or TV series so much for granted and that thanks to videos like this, we can see just how really accurate these movies and TV shows are!
And what made you believe that this exactly video is telling true? You funny tool 😂
@@amirhankhatsiev1035 There are many reasons for this being proven otherwise.
1) The Battle of Stirling is actually called the Battle of Stirling Bridge because the battle took place by a bridge that helped the Scots win the battle!
2) Scottish kilts weren't invented until the 18th century. This war took place in the late 13th & early 14th century!
3) The blue war paint was never something Williams Wallace wore into battle. This was something the Celtic & German tribes did back during the days of the Roman Empire to frighten their enemies.
I'll stop there for now, what's your proof that this guy wasn't telling the truth?
BRAVEHEART one of my all time favorite movies. Saying that I have watched it many times and it never gets old. Your commentary is very informative I thoroughly enjoyed it. I'm looking forward to following your channel. I love history and you're right Hollywood does stretch the shit out of the truth boiling everything down to the bottom line of the the amount of revenue a film can or hopefully will generate. Glad I found you, not boring, enthusiastic and straight shooting delivery of content.
When I was in the 9th grade there were two girls in my art class talking about how hot Mel Gibson was, and how they had no guilt watching Braveheart because it was a history lesson. When I bought up the first line from the movie they called me a prude. I'm glad someone else finally pointed out the fact that the movie opens by saying, "what follows is probably rubbish."
Another inaccuracy, although technically not historical, was that the music we hear in the movie is played on the Irish Uillean Pipes and not the Scottish Bag Pipes.
Supposedly this was because the Uillean Pipes fitted better in an orchestra than the Bag Pipes.
As you say, not a historical inaccuracy as the modern Scottish war pipes are the sole survivor (in Scotland) of the many historical variations on bagpipes. In Scotland the war pipes, survived as a way to inspire Scottish regiments in battle (i.e. meant to be loud and be heard over long distances) and therefore they totally wouldn't fit with an orchestra. A different relationship with England meant the Irish had little local military and therefore a form of bagpipes designed for playing indoors survived into the modern era. Bagpipes very similar to the modern Irish form would have been entirely accurate for just about any country in Europe throughout the middle ages.
Also speaking of music, the tune to "Black Is the Color of my True Love's Hair" as used in the soundtrack was written in the early 20th century by John Jacob Niles, an American.
The pipes were a F'g joke! -- Bill Connolly on the Scots adopting the bagpipes.
It was filmed in Ireland
I thought he was bout to say the music didn’t play irl lmao 😂 😂
As a history nerd, the movie makes me sob.
As a movie nerd, this movie makes me shed a tear. (I'll admit it; the Bannockburn ending scene can legitimately make me misty-eyed.)
I’m English and a historian and I love this movie.
Massively inaccurate but brilliant movie!
As long as we view it for what it is... Sometimes it's ok to enjoy a good film and detach from reality. There isn't a single accurate "War" film anyway.
@@kimberleysmith818 Well I don't know, the movie recreates many actual events. The execution of Wallaces wife. The execution of Sheriff Hesselrig at Lanark. The battle of Stirling wasn't logistically possible to recreate on a bridge so it was decided to use an open field. Also for cinematic purposes. The battle of Falkirk, Wallaces capture and torture and execution was recreated. Obviously 700+ years might dim the exact details But it's also a movie not a historical document. I don't know why it gets so much stick about its accuracy when it surprisingly did recreate quite a few actual events.
I liked the movie for what it was, but i hated the steryotypes that came from it.
I can never unsee Seamus's rubber axe wobbling as he runs in the Battle of Bannockburn. It ruins that scene for me.
The war paint and kilts is like the Founding Fathers wearing togas.
Well wouldn't it be like the founding fathers wearing jeans because kilts were post this time period lol
@@elenarodriguez7809 I once saw a historian describe the use of kilts in Braveheart (which are worn incorrectedly, no less, since they're clearly supposed to be belted plaids) to be akin to a movie about the American Revolution where everybody wears modern business suits, except they all have the jackets on backwards.
And with Aviator sunglasses
War paint was worn in Scotland way before William Wallace so putting that out of the picture is purely idiotic. Soldiers also wrapped tartans around themselves before the supposed “invention” date. Use your head, not Wikipedia
@@knightofrose115 Thank you for correcting me.
Don’t worry, as someone from Scotland, we don’t think your hating on it cause your English. We either hate it or laugh at how inaccurate it is. Anyone who has at most had history in secondary knows how stupid it is and sometimes younger. I grew up near Loudoun hill so the Scottish wars of independence were practically drilled into my head
*you're
As a Englishman and former history buff, I hated it. It was offensive to both cultures, and oversimplified the English and Scotts to cartoon-level good guys and horrible bad guys. As a film lover, I thought it was OK. The story and scale of the film was admirable, but obviously done for Hollywood to make a rags to Jesus story. And there were other historical films from the same year like Sense and Sensibility, Apollo 13 and Nixon. Of course they're not very accurate either, but they took their time showing the flaws and development of the main characters and villains, and they showed events unfold in a naturalistic way not from act 1: introduction to act 2: conflict. And by the end, what I really loved about them was it being your decision if you rooted for the MC's or despised the villains.
It doesn't even matter, even in the film the Scottish lost and the film itself made out like the Scots were idiots. In reality the English were scarred shitless of the Scots
Donald Mackay There has only been 2 wars between Scotland and England. Scotland has won both of them. There have been many other conflicts over the years but not wars as such as the Wars of Independence. The Scots won more battles than the English in the 1st war. Especially after 1306. The English won more battles in the Second war of Independence. However, the Scots still won the war. As a Scotsman, you should brush up on your history.
@@ALBA-js3um scots lost the second war of independence as England moved onto fight France. Also the Scottish lost badly in the battle of flodden and pinkie 30 years apart from eachother where most of the Scottish nobility was wiped out.
"The only historically accurate movies Mel Gibson has ever been a part of are the Mad Max movies" - Dave Douglas - September 23rd 2059
*I point to We Were Soldiers* That is the one exception to the rule.
@@Tracer_Krieg Actually, that movie got a few things wrong as well.
Coming soon to a corner of America near you!
RaiderDave2112
Yes, so did Hacksaw Ridge. But.. Mel Gibson has improved since then.
Watch Gallipoli its excellent and mel Gibson is excellent in it
what a hero he is, fought english twice, also fought int the vietnam war
"I guess the native Americans didn't believe in freedom hard enough." That is so hilarious and so bad haha.
Believing in freedom don't stop smallpox
Also they would be trying to out freedom the US. Not a great plan
Annette M. FYI I remember reading that the Scottish enlightenment thinker wasn’t nationalists. If true I can speculate they for that reason should not have like this movie.
But as you know here we really, really miss the point. The point was of course to make fun of Hollywood's idea that battles are won by inspirational speeches. To take a newer example Wonder woman apparently includes an example of that.
sorry but rural natives were wiped out (90 percent) by small pox (which killed 400k europeans annually) , flu,and measles (which killed millions of europeans as well).
@@SardaukarNo1 I bet that long walk to Oklahoma was just for exercise. 90% my ass, people killed more people than any pathogen did.
As a movie buff, I like Braveheart as a good yarn, nothing more. But as a Scot heavily into my country's history, it's a huge embarrassment. I also worry about the number of Scots who think it's accurate, and you summed it up, that it cheapens Wallace.
Also, as an Edinburgher, I can't handle Edinburgh Castle depicted as a wooden-pallisade fort on a flat plane. Edinburgh Castle stands atop a basalt rock outcrop - once a volcanic vent, at the head of the inclined ridge on which the city was built, and which forms Edinburgh's 'Royal Mile'.
BTW, Falkirk is pronounced "fall-kirk". A minor thing, I know, but it still grates on the nerves a wee bit to hear a Robertson mispronounce it.
Oh, and the archers at Falkirk were Welsh, not English. They almost refused to fight for Edward Longshanks after a fight between them and the English broke out after they landed at Dunbar.
Otherwise, a great review, and I actually learned a few things I wasn't aware of.
Very interesting, as an American my knowledge of European history is very limited. I was told from somewhere that Robert the Bruce played a bigger part in Scottish history than William Wallace. But I could be wrong.
Someone named Blind Harry probably isn't a good source of historical reference.
Saw it with his own, er, quill!
he wasn’t actually blind
Almost as bad as Dickless Henry the incorrigible
Skidmark Steve wasn't available since he was hanging out and playing Nintendo.
Right? Like Deaf JoJo, the record executive.
It actually is true that Wallace stated that he never declared allegiance to King Edward and thus could not be considered a traitor at his trial. In fact, one of the reasons for the massive uproar after his execution was because he was given a traitors punishment when he never officially declared allegiance to England
The main problem is that people buy into the myth. Braveheart has perpetuated a false belief in Scottish popular culture that Robert the Bruce was some sort of Judas, when this was simply not the case. This is why that film is so damaging, it prevents everyone (regardless of their national identity) from seeing how great Robert the Bruce the man really was. He was able to achieve such greatness in his lifetime against what should have been impossible odds. It really is an inspirational story. Yet Braveheart shows him as some weak side character, this is the definition of a travesty.
@murray1234567891011 To be fair, I don't think Braveheart portrays him like a "cartoon villain". He's easily the most fleshed out/sympathetic of the Scottish nobles, and we do see him get a bit of redemption at the end when he leads the Scots against the English once again.
My name is Timothy but Robert was definitely a better Bruce than I could ever be.
He was French
I am a descendant of william wallace. I also have a degee i history. Innacurate...romantisized ? Yeah. Still...a pretty good movie. Movies are for escape like a good book and it was good for that at least. Hollywood will never get history movies right. Life is messy at best , not a romatic story of a brave knight protecting the princess( and not raping her). Im about to watch Mary queen of Scott's knowing full well its B.S. but hey...it looks good.
If that's the case, people need to pick up a book.
Love how this dude can respect movies that try to get it right historically and completely shit on those that don't.
I swear right at the start you said "insanely accurate". Didn't you mean to say "inaccurate"?
He did,I heard it too
This is why I’m in the comments
It's called sarcasm.
@@nickpastorino5370 Nope, listen to the full statement, it was clearly a mistake.
I remember an annotation correcting his mistake before those got removed
I know, I know….. this movie is a train wreck of inaccuracies, but I will ALWAYS love it! My Scottish ancestors fought at Bannockburn and I’m still not bothered. The soundtrack alone is capable of drawing you in emotionally.
@@Ross-ro1su Not sure why you felt compelled to insult me or if you just don’t know what pleb means?
@@Ross-ro1su Oooohh, good comeback!
The soundtrack is absolutely amazing. Played partially by Irish instrument instead of Scottish. But just another thing that can be forgiven for its beauty in my opinion. For it appears that I, too, am a pleb lol😊
@@toddabowdenthe Irish pipes instead of Scottish is the only thing that bothered me. That and the extras in the battle scenes weren't great.
It's accurate enough though. Bannockburn was a real event as you know.
“People who understand love history.
Those who don’t love history don’t understand it.”
History isn’t facts and numbers and ridged timelines, it’s _people_, and people are inherently interesting, compelling, and deserve to be represented accurately.
How right you are.
factually?
@@radikalmoderate5705 what?
Wait..... are you saying that people can be represented a bit more dramatically to tell a story and get an emotional response and exact dates etc. aren't important or are you saying they are?? I'm confused..
@@8bitakvids people are inherently interesting. Showing their stories as accurately as possible should be the _ideal_ with the reality allowing some small room for fudging.
Monty python is more historicaly acurate
That's the sad thing...
I'm almost positive I heard one of the Scottish warriors say "Ni."
@@KatRo13834 Well, I mean, that is an actual word in Gaeilge.
The French are a more proud, noble people in Monty Python.
@@keeganowens8949 Don't oppress me, Reg.
Despite the inaccuracies you have to admit it’s a good movie. I mean entertainment value wise it’s great.
I'd agree with that. It's definitely a fun watch with some great scenes in it.
It used to be one of my favorite movies and while the inaccuracies kinda piss me off I can still enjoy watching it as long as I treat it more like historical fiction.
As a Scotsman, the inaccuracies piss me off, but Braveheart was really fun to watch. No doubt did they know the history but made some changes to make it into a better movie. If historical films all went exactly by what happened, they wouldnt be as good.
@@cjk2761 I don't see how the changes they made helped this movie
@@fleshautomatonanimatedbyne6327 they gave it the required love story to pull on everyone's heart strings. You are way more involved knowing the guy's new wife had her throat slit versus the theory he possibly had his land taken. It's something most can relate to as far as having been in love before. Better? I don't know, but for some I'm very sure they would like the love story version. That's just one example I can think of
@@fleshautomatonanimatedbyne6327 To be honest, on second thoughts, the changes probably didnt help the movie. Regardless, they manged to pull it off and its a good movie.
As a direct descendant of the brother of the real Sir William Wallace, I thank and applaud you sir!
Am I the only one who recognized “He was a man living on a farm in North Dakota” was a radio passage from GTA Vice city?
Ahhh I see you are a man of culture as well xD
yes, you are the only one that played GTA Vice City
That's probably the best commercial in all of Vice City
Finally I'm with my type of people 🤣
With all of the inaccuracies in this movie, I'm supprised you didn't mention the most glaring issue: William Wallace was never called "Brave Heart", in fact that was Robert the Bruce's cognomen.
A lot of people have said that Robert was the actual protagonist in this movie.
Touche!
His dad used to call him brave heart so wrong again Chauncey.
Still a good film though.
"Before you say I'm picking on the movie because I'm English"... hmmm sounds like something an Englishman would say... lol jk
I'm an Englishman and Mel Gibson hating on us doesn't really matter to me
@@louisbarraud7853 It’s still only half as bad as what he thinks about the jews.
@@louisbarraud7853 I'm scottish and this movie is insulting
"So:🖕There! Pfft!"
@@louisbarraud7853 It matters enough for you to make a comment about it.
What was missing in Mel Gibson's film 'Braveheart' was Hobbits, a Ranger (Strider) from the north, Elves, Dwarves and the power of an evil Ring. That just might have had this film a bit more convincing to the truth historically.
You forgot Captain Christopher Pike and the crew of the USS Enterprise.
The truth was that William Wallace led Scotland to independence from England in the 13th century. That's all that's needed, unless you're a pretentious snob.
Mel gibson would hate lord of the rings
And add a dragon and we're good
I love how the Battle of Stirling Bridge wasn't even on a bridge
Apparently a local approached Gibson and asked where's the bridge. Gibson said it got in the way and the local replied aye that's what the English found out
I love how most Mel Gibson action films he has a wife or daughter or son and they are killed horribly and he looks up at the sky and goes “NOOOO” then goes round killing people and in the case of Braveheart he gets over his dead wife very fast and sleeps with that other lady very fast.
In every Hollywood action movie the male (90% usually white, 10% black, and never Asian or another race) protagonist usually has sex with a female character. That’s how audiences know they’re a stud, aside from kicking everyone’s asses. It’s a hackneyed trope.
@@TheMasterhomaster what doesn’t make sense with Braveheart however is historically he never meets the princess and she was 3 at the time so it’s pointless.
@@TheGreatPerahia this is none directed works as well though
It’s like Sean Bean dying in almost every movie he appears.
Started with Mad Max.
What bothers me is that they misrepresented the English nobility because they all were fluent in French. So the French chicks speaking French hoping the English don’t understand them is idiotic.
Inaccurate? Yes. But idiotic? in reality, the English soldiers would have been speaking middle English, which would be impossible for modern audiences to understand. The nobility would speak French, and the Scots would be speaking Gaelic. Does anyone really think that it would have been feasible to do this film in original languages? This History Buff guy really has it in for Mel Gibson. I like Dances with wolves, but Braveheart is a superior film.
@@willm623 Agreed. Although, Dances With Wolves was done to death in American literature
Fluent in French? It was their mother tongue
This History Buff guy really has it in for Mel Gibson. With fucking reason
will m who are you replying to? Matt only pointed out the idiocy of using French as a "secret" language, i see NOTHING implying that he thinks the different languages of the time should've been used accurately. Only that that part of the plot should've been better written.
It bewilders me the number of people who come to a channel called 'History Buffs' and then complain because it talks about history ......
17:19 Random Extra on Set: "Where's the bridge?"
Gibson: "The film crew found it too difficult to work around."
Random Extra: "Aye, that's what the English found."
;)
1:11 "ITS INSANELY ACCURATE!"
William Wallace wasn’t even Braveheart. Historically, Robert the Bruce was called Braveheart. They didn’t even get the name right.
It was originally "of Brus" but it became anglicized.
@sheldon pereira
He was of Norman descent so Robert of Bruce means his family would have come from somewhere called Brus or Bruce in France
Interesting, do you have a source for that? I can't find one. Googling 'Robert the Bruce Braveheart' and similar phrases just returns pictures of Angus Macfadyen and articles about the movie.
I thought Braveheart was the sword?
Arthur Nichols. That’s it. all the Scottish nobles were of Norman decent, and so were the English nobles . And de Wallace he was from Welsh Norman ancestry. Longshanks was from the Plantagenet dynasty and they were a French noble family that married into the Norman kingdom over a French territory dispute. That brought England centuries of war with France. Hardly any of these people were pure English or Scots, and were of the same blood. These American versions of British history blame everything on the English, but never tell the story of the Norman invasion of England which changed British and Irish history for ever.
“Historians from England would say I am a liar...”
Opening line of the movie...
HE WAS RIGHT
Edit: oh he brought that up commented too early
Becoming a fan for the second time around. Love the shredding of this "telling of history". Even though I was born an Englishman, Scotland took my heart when I visited in the 90s...
As a historian, I agree this movie is just......bad. But as a movie buff, I truly love this movie. A movie doesnt have to be historically accurate to be good.
@May Gina holly wood??? You mean the lead singer of Toronto? What’s she got to do with it?
I’m sorry if I’m being rude, but I personally find Braveheart boring.
Sure as long as you don’t mind your action with a giant side-helping of misogyny.
I've been burned so many times by biopics that I don't believe anything anymore. Every time I watch a biopic, instead of concentrating on the plot I'm always thinking "Did this really happen? Did that really happen? I can't wait for this movie to be over so I can check the wiki". That's not the viewing experience that you want your audience to have. They can't really blame the audience for feeling this way, it's like a "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" situation.
Haha, very true! 🤣😊🤙🏼
Oh the days when a 25 minute history buffs video was considered "extra long"
I never really thought that historical accuracy mattered in a Mel Gibson action movie from 1995.
That's fair enough...don't call it after a real life historical person then
@@GIBBO4182 You know what's really funny? The nickname "Braveheart" refers to King Robert the Bruce, not William Wallace, so the name of the movie is inaccurate too.
@austin wool i guess it doesn't if you're just looking at it as an action movie, but i don't think your complaining matters on a channel that makes videos about history and historical accuracy in movies.
@@jimm7346 not really complaining, just stating my opinion.
@@TheAustinWoolShow fair
The fact that they had the mindset of, "Scottish = Kilts & Face paint" is evidence enough that they literally knew nothing of the subject matter.
It's more interesting for the viewer to see varied costumes and the battle scenes would be harder to follow if each side was composed of a huge amount of identical looking peasants and a much smaller number of knights wearing the same armour but each wearing individual surcoats.
@@juskahusk2247 All well and good. Still one of the most inaccurate Historical films. Period.
The kilts are a little silly, but they did wrap tartans around their armour and not the face paint argument again…Christ. People were wearing face paint for centuries before the 1300’s. Just because some dweeb in the 21st century posted some supposed “research” on the internet doesn’t make it fact. Here’s a tip, stop using a multimillion dollar corporation like Google for your history
@@coolguyhino92 Who cares seriously? Cant you enjoy MOVIES that doesn't completely despict reality.
@@emilfrederiksen.1622 "who cares"
apparently YOU care a little to much about a 2 year old comment, from a random fukwit(me) online.
I have MY own issues with the mindset of those who wrote/made the movie.
But apparently YOU have issue with ANYONE who can't shut their brain off during movies.
Get over it.
Unpopular opinion: I actually really like this film, not because it portrays Williams's time accurately as thats clearly not the case. But because i actually understand what the screenwriter was trying to do and it worked for me. I remember watching this when i was younger with my dad and me being of a very young age didnt care/understand the history of the movie or its inaccuracies. I simply saw a man fighting for his freedom and felt his energy and emotions through Mels performance. Fastward to now when im in my 20s do i still enjoy this film? Of course. Before anyone asks, yes im an Englishman and have no problem with this film 'sticking' it to us, wars never innocent and both sides have their dark sides. Take away all the historical ties/attempts and this film can suffice as a non-fiction movie. (At least in my opinion)
I watched in in honduras n we love this movie
@@user-gk3yh2wf1fwhat a ridiculous statement. The English empire committed untold amounts of atrocities that would make you sick if you heard it. This movie all though most likely not authentic, accurately portrays the attitude of English imperialism.
@@user-gk3yh2wf1f no one hates everyone in England because of this movie. Stop being so ridiculously dramatic. Are you actually serious?
I like this film very much, but I think they should have made it explicitly clear that it was based off of a work of fiction, instead of saying it as "oh those bloody english won't tell you the REAL tale of glorious god savior giant protector warrior man his great honorable did-i-mention-savior WILLIAM WALLACE"
Yeah, it would have been better if it was told like a legend.
Like 300? I understand the bullshit that film pulled because it was made clear the events we're shown are exaggerated due to it being told to others from a Spartans perspective.
@@God_gundam36 and it is based on a graphic novel too.
I wonder how accurate lord of the rings is. I remember when we defeated the forces of evil in new Zealand. Thank god Gandalf was sent from the magical kingdom of the United States to look for Sauron's weapons of mass destruction.
Savage Kiwis just needed some freedom.
I thought Ian McKellen was British.
They rode the eagles to mordor IRL
Problem with braveheart is the Scots decided it was true and wanted independence ever since
Mr. Hodges please keep your history buff channel open I respect you very much you've opened my eyes to accurate
I suppose AoE2 Tutorial Campaign is more accurate xD
Battle of Falkirk: Where English castles were burnt down by an army of villagers slashing at it with blades.
Still more accurate than this movie ? :P
That was a good campaign though 😀
Agh, Medieval 2 Total War is inaccurate.
Navi, The Real Fairies Queen Former YANG. , lol Isn't that game supposed to be a history sandbox ?
will be interesting to see you do Outlaw King which actually goes for accuracy as opposed to Braveheart which aimed for a modern romanticized version of an already romanticized poem.
its so good! there are some things that aren't perfect but compared to this trash i was very impressed. I felt their attention to detail really showed how much they cared about being true to the history. More importantly it proved that you can produce an amazing film whilst also being historical accurate the two are not mutually exclusive!
@@callahanslegionnaire3090 Agreed - was really impressed and in my mind Outlaw King tarnished movies that take countless liberties with history. Clearly a movie can look great while be true to the times.
@@nathans5347 I enjoyed the film. The battle is actually fairly accurate, minus the fight with Edward. Not only was Edward not there, but nobody in their right mind would let the enemy king walk away. I am sure they wanted an emotional climax, but letting Edward go when he has Robert's family captive is asinine, especially given how many YEARS later it would be before Robert's wife was freed.
Yeah but aren't we supposed to be outraged because the lead role isn't played by a Scot? I guess casting issues only apply to blacks, Chinese, Japanese, gays, trans; basically any role that isn't a straight, white male.
Accuracy? There's a scene where Robert Bruce goes to Berwick-upon-Tweed to deliver taxes to the English and there are black Africans in town garbed in Caribbean-style Carnival clothing. What? Also, at the final battle, Edward II and Robert Bruce fight a one-on-one sword battle. I also thought the clothing was a little too clean and brightly-colored for the High Middle Ages. "Braveheart" may be historical rot, but I never lost my sense of belief except when William Wallace manages to invade a castle and ride through it on horseback (and then high dive from the battlements into the moat).
Even the title is not historically accurate it was Robert the Bruce that was known as Braveheart
Ronald palmer to be fair if the movie was more accurate, I could forgive the title.
@@theguyishere249 If they get the easiest part of being accurate wrong what chance do they have in getting the hard parts correct
Wallace was "A Bravehert"
The movie follows Wallace, but it is told from the perspective of Robert. He recounts Wallace's legend and narrates half of the movie.
@@EmperorJ123 No...
Wallace was born in Elderslie, by Paisley. He was the second son of a nobleman. As his brother would have taken this father's place, a noble's second son was often sent off for education in the church. Wallace was educated at Paisley Abbey. (That's what I learned working at Paisley Abbey anyway!)
I’m 6”3 and considered tall by today’s standards imagine being 6”5 like Wallace back in the day , what an intimidating figure.
The Strawberry Pimp if you are not fat most definitely you are
Charlemagne was over 1.90m
It's another myth about people being smaller back then
That may be true. But 6" 5 is hella tall by any standard.
Way before whey protein
I've always thought that the extra wearing the sunglasses during a battle scene was kind of historically inaccurate too. Not to mention the automobile driving across the shot in the background...
ha !
i was ten when my mother and i watched it and i remember her saying
‘ this is so stupid. he’s clean shaven in every single scene no matter what. how the hell are you finding time to shave , Mel ?
thanks. i thoroughly enjoyed this.
Exactly most statues and paintings depict him with a beard
Never watched this looking for a history lesson. Just a good film that was well written, acted and directed. On that it delivers. It's a classic in my house.
Opening with "it's insanely accurate" followed by talking about how inaccurate the movie is was kind of confusing at first.
This threw me off at first too but I just convinced myself the he said "this movie is insane inaccurate"
Might be sarcasm, Don't forget he's british, primary language is sarcasm followed by English. " _It's Insanely accurate_ "
@@ryaffus7208 Yeah, but it's still very confusing and "insanely" is normally used in a postive and not in negative way. If sarcasm was intended, then insanely was probably the wrong choice of adjective to use here and the emphasis in his voice doesn't really imply sarcasm. I think it was a simple mistake in wordchoice due to the fact, that he was pissed of at the inaccuracy!^^
Very!
Glad to see other people noticed this...i thought I had turned stupid or something.
The fact that you're English makes this and The Patriot videos 1000x better
UnlimitedK9 exactly
@@WRGOP Well his race makes no difference to the many inaccuracies in both of those awful films. Should he hate them because they are inaccurate? Thats another question. But the clear bullshit in these films, as well as the obvious anti-English sentiment they put out there is simply a fact, regardless of what race a person is.
Lynchy The Classical Liberal yeah I get the movie isn’t very accurate but It’s still a good movie in general
I'm surprised Scotland had any scenery left after Mel was done chewing.
Mel Gibson is a beast.
@smilebackifyourugly and Ireland hadn't suffered enough
@smilebackifyourugly Not even the scenery was accurate
As fun and entertaining Braveheart was, it's appreciated to know what actually happened!
Mel Gibson must really hate the English.
S. Albertsen he’s Irish that’s how we roll.
I thought Gibson was Aussie?
Ah.....
@uncletigger I mean they've done some shit in the past but damm so has every county. People gotta give some credit when it's due
Who doesn't?
12:35 - 13:05 It's also bad Latin. It should be called "prima nox," not "prima nocta."
Also, the comparison of William Wallace to Robin Hood becomes uncannily specific when you realize that both legendary figures seem to have had a love interest named Marian inserted into the mythos in later editions.
Also wasn’t Jesus’ wife called Marian? Coincidence???? Edit: after a quick google I’m wrong so forget that statement
@@sandybell4913 ??????
@LegoGuy87 Ah, a single-letter mistake in an ablative form! That makes more sense!
@LegoGuy87 Its because it changed over the years. The original term is french but the latin phrase is "jus primae noctis"
No its "jus (iūs) primae noctis" or "right of the first night". It's genetive since direct translation would be "Right first of night".
Despite the insane inaccuracies, it is still an excellent movie
+lucas scavello It tells a great story, with the same narrative that Gibson's pulled in a number of his other movies. As the maker of the video pointed out, the God-fearing pacifistic family man is pulled into conflict with the cartoony bad-guys after they do something to his family. He then goes on a Rambo-esque rampage and draws endearing everyday schmoes to his cause, and together they give the mustache twirling villains what's coming to them. Basically, establish your protagonist as the clear good-guy, establish your antagonist as the clear bad-guy, and then let the script play itself out.
It was the same with the Patriot, Braveheart, We Were Soldiers not so much, Gibson either has more respect for the North Vietnamese than he does for the Jews and English, or he didn't have much of a hand in their character development in the script writing. The Passion of the Christ is another clear example, with the express propaganda purpose of re-establishing the charges of deicide against the Jewish people in rejection of the rulings of Vatican II. The Mad Maxes do the same thing, as does Apocolypto. While the former is a better apocalypse film, the latter is a disturbing justification of Western genocide in the Americas.
+thefreeatlast arefreeatlast you're right
+lucas scavello if you are a fan of literature I think this is one of the best historical fictional films out there. It is filled with symbolism, biblical allusions and allegories. Do not just take a review and based your opinion after it.
+lucas scavello It's got a lot of film making errors as well. Just look at them on IMDB.com - they have goofs and errors listed there.
Yes IT is
Hi History Buff, really enjoy your videos! Another inaccuracy about Clan tartans is that these weren't really a thing for Clans. Yeah some Clans did have preferences for tartans and such but didn't have a specific type, this is merely an invention of the 19th century and romantics. That of course doesn't make tartans fraudulent or anything and the one you wore looks very nice! X
i watch this from time to time just to hear Nick rage his heart out.
Hhaha same xd
I saw this as young teenager, and loved it so much and cried at his execution and got really emotional, and leaving the theatre I felt like I rarely had seeing any movie before that. When i grew older and learned about the true history, I actually felt betrayed and I can't watch the movie anymore.
Soundtrack is phenomenal still though.
The bottom line is that Wallace's efforts ultimately set up The Bruce for Bannockburn, which prevented the English conquering Scotland; and that is undisputed.
that's sad..i hope you learn the difference between movies and documentries
Yea the soundtrack is superb.
@@stewarthill9429 Wallace’s actions had no impact on Bannockburn.
It is still a good movie and the soundtrack is heavenly.
I’m surprised there was no mention of the future queen being pregnant with Wallace’s baby 😂
Because it didn't happen at all.
Our channel master, Mr. Hodges of the Bobertson Clan, already stated in this video that Princess Isabella was both the following when William Wallace was executed:
1. 9 years old
2. still living in France
You mean the future queen who wasn't even in England yet at the time of Wallace? And she would've been about 10 at the time. Now somebody should do a movie about her. Isabella was something else and became known as the she-wolf of France. She came by it naturally. Her father was Phillip the Fair, the French King who destroyed the Knights Templar.
@@beemoji2280 Isabella ended up being quite the badass herself later on. The She-wolf and all that. Hey Hollywood, make THAT movie.
@@beemoji2280 You can find her in "A World Without End" (2012)
@@michaelsinger4638 Agreed.That would be a film !!!
Appreciate the self-control while trying to explain the history of it all, with how much you go into detail sometimes it feels like being betrayed live when you go trough these kind of movies.
“Brave Heart” actually refers to Robert the Bruce and not William Wallace
@macsikar Mackay well said, history empowers us
Hati Hattencoat -tough it is a confusing title like in The Last samurai
I think the actual story of William Wallace would make a far better film: a small force out smarting a full army, but, saying that, I think the better film would actually be about Robert the Bruce, how he actually gained freedom, his pike tactics and an emotional scene in the famous cave where he is inspired by a spider failing to make a web but persevering..
NewBenCity I think there is something in the pipeline with regards Robert the Bruce
8:39 That's some nice tread for peasant shoes
I'm really proud of my Scottish roots too, which is WHY I have a problem with Braveheart. It's like that episode of Futurama with Whalers on the Moon - Not just inaccurate, but reductive and weird.
Understandable
I appreciate the honesty, however if it wasn't for that movie I would have never knew about William Wallace but it definitely got me interested in history. I did my own research as a 14 year old boy and I was surprised to find out the truth. Mel Gibson still rocks in my book. I do enjoy your channel keep showing stuff please. History is my favorite subject.
The funny thing about this film is that it makes Scottish history more confusing then it already is and it’s the most famous decision of Scottish history
Apparently the Irish joining up with the Scots at the Battle of Falkirk was an inside joke , as the battle scene was filmed in Ireland so the "Scottish" extras were mostly Irish.
@Maria Kelly Exactly, my dad served in the Irish army. He wasn't involved in the shooting but knew plenty who were. The Irish defence forces made up all of the extras on both sides and on the day they refused to fight unless the Irish were depicted to fight AGAINST the English. 😂😂😂😂 Braveheart isn't supposed to be accurate, its just a big beautiful mythical struggle for self determination, and the Irish joining the Scots was a beautiful addition to the film.
Btw, that's why the extras are tearing absolute lumps out of each other. Give a soldier an excuse to kick the shite out of his mate and he'll take it 😂😂😂😂
@@eoghancasserly3626 Well Wallace and The Bruce raped and pillaged Ireland.
@Maria Kelly Wait you aren't from near the Curragh barracks are you?
I'm disappointed Mel Gibson never screamed "THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!!!"
There was no Stirling bridge in the movie.The Bridge was central to the whole battle.Andrew Murray who was just as much of a hero as Wallace doesn’t even get a mention.
What you say, and most of the criticisms in the video, are perfectly true. But what is worse is that the film contains not merely events that _didn't_ happen, but that _couldn't_ have happened: events and things that simply insult the audience's intelligence. This is MUCH worse than merely inaccurate history. The most obvious one is the pathetic way in which William Wallace's (or, more accurately, Mel Gibson's) men are "armed" and "armoured." This isn't what a Scottish army in the late 13th century looked like! This is a bloody Glasgow street gang transported back in time! It's an insult to the entire Scottish nation. The real William Wallace fought at the head of men who were properly armed (just like their English foes, although with less logistical back-up), properly armoured, and (in the case of the nobles) mounted on real medieval knights' horses, not the damn ponies used in the film! If the real Wallace's force had been like this, they would have been massacred, bridge or no damn bridge. And to imply that the English army (one of the most-feared armies in the whole of Europe - just ask the French!) could have been defeated by this rabble is an insult to the entire English nation. Fuck off, Gibson, you drunken, anti-Semitic, religious lunatic!
They mention him as Moray, using the classical spelling. He's one of the nobles that assists in the first battle by riding around behind the archers, but then later betrays Wallace. Wallace rides his horse into his bedchamber and kills him with a mace and chain in the movie, as opposed to his being mortally wounded during the battle and dying later that year (November, 1297)
War paint on the face is from tribal culture and white people are the only people on Earth that have no aboriginal tribes. Those people never painted their faces. It was just added to the movie to make him look more "bad ass".
BOONIQUE The Picts used to tattoo their bodies but that was long before this time period.
gg
The Sunday Times a few years ago listed the top ten most historically inaccurate Hollywood films of all time and three of them were Mel Gibson films!
The bagpipes from the soundtrack aren't even Scottish. They are Irish uilleann pipes
Lol
Where do the inaccuracies end?!
They couldn’t even get that right? 😂
Little fact About Edward 1st
The reason he was nicknamed longshanks is because he was in real life 6ft2 and in medieval times the average height of a full grown mam wae 5ft7 so for the time Edward was a giant