It's difficult to deny that "Braveheart" is an absolute classic. However, the movie has also
done a great job of reinforcing popular fictions, rather than what is really known about the titular
character. Let's take a look at some false things you believe about William Wallace.
Those only slightly familiar with the story of William Wallace might think that the Scottish
people had been oppressed by the English for as long as he was alive, but this was not so. The
future rebel was born around 1270, while Scotland was going through a period of peace and stability.
King Alexander III was a successful ruler who had not only managed to take back the
Western Isles that were seized by Norway but then secured a strong alliance with the Norwegian king
by arranging the marriage to his daughter in 1281, according to World History Encyclopedia.
Wallace's youth was a time of prosperity for Scotland in which the kingdom was on good terms
with Norway, France, and the rest of Europe - even England. This was until a series of tragic events
spelled disaster for the throne and the kingdom as a whole. When Alexander died without children
in 1286, the throne passed to his granddaughter, Margaret, who also perished while on the voyage
from Norway to Scotland in 1290. With no heirs to the Scottish throne left alive,
this is when the English king got involved and tried to take over.
So, William Wallace was in his twenties and not a kid when everything went south for Scotland.
Nor were his father and brother killed by the English during his childhood,
as shown in "Braveheart." Instead, it was the events that took place
after 1292 that truly sparked Wallace's hatred of the English.
William Wallace has frequently been portrayed as a man of the people going all the way back
to the late Middle Ages. On the contrary, he was not a commoner and instead was a member of the
lesser nobility. According to Chris Brown in his book, "William Wallace: The Man and the Myth,"
although it was a minor and obscure aristocratic family, the Wallaces were certainly still nobles.
Wallace's origin as the son of a landowning knight has often been ignored by both the English
and Scottish over the centuries for different reasons. To the Scots, it was then easier for
him to be seen as a hero of the common people. On the other hand, his perceived lower status also
made it easier for the English to vilify him. For this reason, the English also preferred the tales
of Wallace's thievery or his acts as an outlaw.
Stirling Bridge is the first battle that we know for certain that William Wallace fought in. But with that said, it is also very likely
that he at least had some prior experience in warfare, given his success. However, it has
been difficult for historians to determine where that might have been because no evidence of this
possible military experience has been uncovered so far. One would think that his fierce opposition
to the English would mean that he never would have fought for them, but that may not be true.
"You disrespect a banner of truce?"
"From his king? Absolutely."
It is quite possible that Wallace fought as a mercenary in the English army as a young adult.
Chris Brown admits that the Welsh wars of English king Edward I could have been where
he began his military career, but the problem with that theory is that if it were true, the
English would probably have realized that and used it against him. It would have discredited Wallace
and put his loyalty into question for his fellow Scots if he had previously fought for the enemy.
Another possibility is that Wallace fought in the retinue of a Scottish
noble. But if this were the case, he would not have seen major action
because Scotland had not engaged in any national war throughout his youth.
Beyond "Braveheart," the tale of William Wallace getting revenge for the killing of his wife,
Marion, originally came from a bard named Blind Harry. According to Undiscovered Scotland,
he wrote the epic poem "The Acts and Deeds of Sir William Wallace,
Knight of Elderslie" in 1470, and this was later used as the basis for Gibson's story.
The legend goes that Wallace visited Marion and their baby daughter at Lanark in May 1297.
Wallace was a known outlaw at this point, so after the English spotted him, he quickly escaped.
Marion, however, was not so lucky. After the sheriff of Lanark had Marion executed for
harboring a fugitive, Wallace and some Scottish warriors broke into the castle and killed the
sheriff, along with every single other English soldier. However, it's possible that the assault
on Lanark was just meant to ignite the rebellion and was not done in pursuit of personal vengeance.
Marion's death may have simply been supplemental folklore used to embellish Wallace's story.
Even if Blind Harry's account is true, it would not have taken the death of a loved one to push
Wallace over the edge, since he was already very hostile to the English before the rebellion had
even begun. He was known to have taken out two English soldiers and then killed the son of an
English constable for merely insulting him. But Wallace's greatest act of defiance was the fact
that he and his family refused to sign the "Ragman Rolls" in 1296, which were meant for the Scots
to swear allegiance to the English king.
Mel Gibson's impressive skill as a filmmaker is on full display in his epic depiction of the Battle of Stirling Bridge. Yet,
the same scene is also one of the best examples of how his pursuit of historical accuracy left much
to be desired. First and foremost, the Battle of Stirling Bridge was actually fought on a bridge,
like the name implies. However, Gibson changed the setting because a bridge
would have made the battle look, quote, "too puny". As the filmmaker admitted to USA Today:
"I'm in the business of cinema. I'm not an [...] historian."
According to Britannica, in reality, William Wallace achieved victory by assaulting the English
at a strategic moment right as their army attempted to cross the bridge on September 11,
1297. Once half of the army was across the bridge, Wallace and the Scots attacked so
quickly that the English could not react in time. With the English soldiers cut off from the rest of
their army on the other side of the crossing, the Scottish outnumbered and rapidly overwhelmed them.
Nearly all the English were cut down or forced into the river and drowned.
In a panic, the English commander ordered his surviving men to destroy the bridge and attempt
to retreat from the carnage. Fueled by their massive success, the Scots forded the river
and pursued the fleeing English until their commander finally managed to get away.
Another of the more egregious insults to historical accuracy in "Braveheart" was
the look of the Scottish men throughout the film, specifically the kilts they wore and
the war paint they applied before combat. According to The Great Courses Daily,
it is possible that the Picts of ancient Britain -- which were basically residing in what we call
Scotland today -- wore blue paint in battle, Wallace and the Scots would not have done so until one thousand years later.
In reality, Wallace definitely wore a helmet in combat just like every other soldier who
could afford one, since protecting the head was more important than any other part of the body.
Plus, Wallace and the Scots were fully Christian at the time,
so it is unlikely that they would have continued the war paint tradition from ancient pagans.
The other major problem is that the kilts worn by the Scots in "Braveheart" did not actually
exist until 300 years after Wallace's death. The Infographics Show also notes that the way
the kilts were worn in the movie would be like if a film depicting colonial America showed
the characters in 20th-century business suits with their belts tied over their suit jackets.
Gibson may have liked the look in his film, but historians found it rather silly.
Because of "The Wallace Sword" on display at the National Wallace Monument,
it has been believed by many over the years that Wallace fought with a giant,
two-handed sword. But The Scotsman says that this sword never actually belonged to him. Instead,
the blade was acquired once the monument was built in the 19th century in a desperate
attempt to display any sort of relic from the great hero. So, what we know as "The
Wallace Sword" was really most likely from the 16th century, 200 years after Wallace's death.
Wallace probably fought with the one-handed sword and shield combo that was common for the 13th century.
And earlier in his military career, it is possible that Wallace was an archer,
since that was the symbol that was shown on his official seal.
But the image could have also meant that he hunted with a bow, rather than using it in battle. It is
not proven whether he used any of these weapons, yet it is much more likely than the unwieldy
claymore that Gibson swung around in the film. In "Braveheart," a major part of the story is the
affair that William Wallace had with the French princess, Isabella, and the film goes so far as
to even claim that the two had a child. It's a final cinematic insult to the dying English king,
who learns that his archenemy's son will be heir to the throne,
but the whole situation is really weird when you know Wallace and Isabella's true ages in history.
According to The Infographics Show, Princess Isabella did not even arrive in England until
1308, which was a couple years after Wallace was executed,
so there's little chance they would have met. Even worse, Isabella was born around 1295,
so she would have only been a child when she would have interacted with Wallace in the film.
"Every man dies.
Not every man really lives."
After his defeat at Falkirk, it is true that William Wallace eventually reverted back to the guerilla style of warfare
he excelled at around 1303. However, it is very likely that he also tried
to be a diplomat before that in order to gain support for the war of independence. Norway was
possibly Wallace's first destination, but his trip to France afterward had a larger impact.
According to Alan Young and Michael J. Stead in their book, "In the Footsteps of William Wallace,"
Wallace traveled to the French court with a small group of companions around November 1299,
without the approval of the ruling council of Scotland. Wallace was also planning to appeal
to the pope in Rome, but it is not certain whether he made this trip as well. Even after spending a
year at the French court and leaving on amicable terms with the king, Wallace failed to garner much
international support and returned to Scotland.
In another gross exaggeration from the film, William Wallace was handed over to the English by the most powerful men in Scotland.
However, Scottish nobles, including Robert the Bruce, did not betray Wallace before he
was captured and executed. Although it is true that Wallace was tricked into entering a trap
under the false pretense that he could speak with Robert, the similarities end there.
According to Undiscovered Scotland, it was instead one man, Sir John Menteith,
who betrayed Wallace to the English on August 3, 1305. Wallace thought Menteith was his friend,
so he trusted the man to set up a meeting with Robert the Bruce. But the traitor led Wallace to
a barn at Robroyston, in modern-day Glasgow, where he was captured by English soldiers.
After being paraded across England in chains for weeks, Wallace faced trial on August 23.
The rebel outlaw was found guilty of numerous charges and then executed in so brutal a way
that it makes us grateful today that we did not have to live in the medieval world.
This will come as a shock to most, but according to Timeline – World History Documentaries,
William Wallace was not actually referred to as "Brave Heart." Instead,
the nickname was really meant for Robert the Bruce for a specific reason that literally
involved his heart. After Wallace's execution in 1305, the future king of Scotland stepped
in to lead the rebellion against the English. Eventually, Robert won the war of independence
for Scotland and forced the English to recognize him as the rightful ruler in 1328.
Before Robert perished a year later, he stated his desire to have his heart removed after death
and taken to the Holy Land of Jerusalem. One of the king's closest companions,
Sir James Douglas, was the one to fulfill this final wish,
so he placed the heart in a metal urn that could be worn as a necklace. However,
Douglas and the group of knights that accompanied him were first asked to join the crusade in Spain
before they could reach Jerusalem. Douglas accepted and brought the heart with him.
Unfortunately, Robert's heart never made it to the Holy Land. While on the crusade,
Douglas and his men were caught off guard in a surprise assault. According to Atlas Obscura,
Douglas tore off the necklace and hurled the urn at his attackers shouting, quote,
"Lead on brave heart, I'll follow thee," before he was cut down in combat. Afterward,
the surviving Scots brought the heart back home. Since his heart was literally carried
into battle, the name "Brave Heart" was then associated with Robert the Bruce.
Check out one of our newest videos right here! Plus,
even more Grunge videos about your favorite stuff are coming soon.
Subscribe to our YouTube channel and hit the bell so you don't miss a single one.