i want you to hit me as hard as you can... I am William Wallace
and I see a whole army of my countrymen here in defiance of tyranny. Mel Gibson's 1995 historical
epic Braveheart transformed Scottish warrior William Wallace into a globally recognized freedom
fighting icon. The film was a critical success and box office smash, and its impact on pop culture
still resonates more than 25 years later. But how accurate is Gibson's portrayal of the highland
hero? Get ready to charge into battle and find out what the [ __ ] really happened to this movie!
First some historical background to the movie's events: in the year 1286
King Alexander III of Scotland died after falling from his horse and breaking his neck. Since the
king had no viable heirs to the throne, a power struggle erupted within the Scottish kingdom
and numerous noble families laid claim to the crown. With Scotland on the brink of civil war,
King Edward Longshanks of England was brought in to mediate and help decide the next Scottish
ruler. John Balliol was eventually named the rightful heir by law and was inaugurated in 1292.
However in the years to follow, Longshanks would significantly undermine Balliol's rule and in 1296
he invaded and eventually conquered Scotland. This marked the beginning of the first war for Scottish
independence. Braveheart takes place during this turbulent period. Screenwriter Randall
Wallace - no relation - was heavily inspired by The Wallace, a romantic biographical poem written
in 1488 by a poet named Blind Harry. It praises the life and actions of the famed Scottish hero.
For hundreds of years the story was the second highest selling book in Scotland just behind the
bible. But despite its insane popularity the story itself has been heavily criticized for
its many historical inaccuracies. While it was likely never intended to be treated as truth,
its embellishments were carried over into the film it inspired. Braveheart begins in the year
1280 with William Wallace as a boy living with his father and older brother. Scotland
has already been invaded by England and the Wallace clan, along with other local peasants,
are the last remnants of resistance against the crown. Of course in reality King Alexander was
still alive and in control of Scotland in the year 1280 so the film's timeline already doesn't sync
up with history. Little is known about the real William Wallace's childhood but it does appear
that he was the second son of Sir Malcolm Wallace. However, documents suggest that Malcolm was a
minor nobleman, not a peasant farmer. Which means William would have spent his childhood training
to be a soldier, not tending to a farm, which may explain his military prowess. Young William sneaks
away to the location of a truce meeting only to find a barn of hanged Scottish barons - a
clear message from King Edward. Fuelled by anger, William's father and brother join several other
local peasants to fight against the crown, but they are killed in the ensuing battle.
This scene was inspired by the Barns of Ayr, taken directly from Blind Harry's poem The Wallace.
Many scholars believe the mass hanging was totally fabricated, while Blind Harry claims the gruesome
discovery took place during Wallace's soldier years, so either way it's not accurate. William's
father and brother also lived until 1305 and 1309 respectively, so the scenes of an orphaned boy
raised by his uncle were created for the movie. The film jumps ahead a few years to London and
we meet the ruthless King Edward Longshanks. His son Prince Edward is being married to Isabella of
France. The movie implies that the prince is gay and held in very low regard by his father. While
there's no way to know how much or how little King Edward may have loved his son, Prince Edward
did have a close and controversial relationship with the Earl of Cornwall, Piers Gaveston - the
specifics of which were the target of persistent rumor. Prince Edward did marry Isabella of France,
but in 1308 and not the 1290s as depicted in the film. King Edward later enacts primae noctis,
a legal statute allowing medieval lords to claim the virginity of serf's daughters on their wedding
night. Scholars view this legal code as a myth - while some believe it may have existed at some
point somewhere in the world, it's widely agreed that it was never enforced during King Edward's
rule over England or Scotland. Back in Scotland an adult William Wallace, famously portrayed by Mel
Gibson, returns to his old family estate to live a quiet life as a peasant farmer. We should probably
get this glaring matter out of the way now - unlike the movie's cast members Angus Macfadyen,
Brian Cox, Tommy Flanagan and even Irish actor Brendan Gleeson, the Scottish accent from the New
York-born Australia-raised Mel Gibson can perhaps best be described as... dodgy. I'm William Wallace
and the rest of you will be spared. Anyway, William with his questionable accent attends a
wedding festival and is reunited with fictional childhood friend Hamish and local girl Murron,
with whom he quickly falls in love. They eventually marry in secret to avoid primae noctis.
William's love for Murron, and her subsequent death, is the emotional backbone of the film
and Wallace's driving motivation in his war against the crown. But did she really exist? In
The Wallace, William's wife is said to be Marion Braidfute, but as we've established Blind Harry
was not actually a historian, nor was he intended to be. Many scholars believe Wallace remained a
single man his entire life. In fact, the first edition of the famed poem never included Marion
Braidfute, or a wife in general. It's believed that a noble family paid a writer years later to
draft a new version of the tale to include Marion so the nobles could claim they were descendants of
the famed Scottish patriot. This literal rewriting of history appears to have been fairly common
back then. Murron is assaulted by some English guards. William attacks the lascivious assailants
and tells Murron to run, intending to meet her later. But Murron is captured and slain by the
sheriff to set an example. Wallace returns to violently avenge his wife's death and murders
the sheriff in retaliation, marking the beginning of his rebellion against the English crown.
The Action at Lanark, as it's been referred to, did actually occur in 1297 and Wallace did execute
the sheriff. But since the real Wallace seemingly had no wife, his motivations behind the attack are
murky at best. Historians don't know exactly what incited Wallace but it's widely agreed the death
of a wife was not the catalyst. After the revolt at Lanark, Wallace assumes his position as leader
of the uprising. Word spreads of Wallace and his army as they tear across the Scottish highlands
attacking English soldiers and burning garrisons belonging to the crown. What started as unrest
quickly transforms into a full-blown rebellion. In the film his soldiers are infiltrated by a
would-be assassin, but William is saved by Stephen the crazy Irishman. You're a madman.
Though Wallace did have a growing list of enemies, it appears both of these men are
fictional creations. Wallace's actions culminate in the Battle of Sterling Bridge in 1297,
now recognized as the first major conflict in the Scottish wars for independence. But the
film's depiction plays out quite differently from the actual battle - for one, the lack of a bridge
in the Battle of Sterling Bridge is pretty noticeable. Real Scottish warriors also did
not paint their faces blue - that was a tradition reserved for the Picts, a group of Celtic-speaking
warriors in northern Scotland hundreds of years prior to this event. Wallace and his army are also
seen wearing kilts, which is another anachronism - the tartan garment didn't become commonplace until
the 1700s. While the actual battle itself was a victory for Wallace and the Scots,
there were no inspiring speeches, no wild charges, no false retreat and no mooning. It was much more
tactical - Wallace and nobleman Andrew Mornay, along with their forces, camped out at Abbey Craig
near the Sterling Bridge, which served as the sole entryway into the Scottish highlands. When
the invading English forces crossed the extremely narrow overpass, Wallace and Mornay launched a
surprise attack using the bridge as a choke point. Eventually the Scottish fighters were able to
overwhelm the English and force them to retreat. It was Wallace's knowledge of the land, as well
as his masterful military tactics, that actually won the battle. Following his victory at Sterling,
William Wallace is knighted and declared guardian of Scotland, the de facto leader of Scotland just
below the king himself. Wallace announces he and his men are going to invade England. I will
invade England and defeat the English on their own ground. Robert the Bruce, the main contender for
the crown of Scotland, tries to convince Wallace against this action as it will further divide the
barons and lords, whose support is necessary for Scottish independence. Wallace ignores Robert's
advice and his rebels invade northern England and attack York, an important garrison to the
king. It's a difficult battle but the Scots are ultimately able to conquer the castle.
The reality of the situation was vastly different from what the movie shows - the real Wallace was
knighted and made guardian of Scotland after Sterling Bridge but he never seized York castle
from the English. The town was hundreds of miles from the Scottish border and impossible to reach
without a steady source of supplies. However, Wallace and the rebels did raise and pillage
a number of settlements closer to the Scottish border, which unsurprisingly angered King Edward.
The film's portrayal of Robert the Bruce is, broadly speaking, fairly accurate. His father
was a loyal supporter of the English crown and resided in British territory throughout the first
wars for independence. He believed siding with the crown would guarantee his son the Scottish throne.
Robert was torn between supporting the Scottish people or siding with the crown. Also, Robert's
father is portrayed as a leper living in exile but in reality he was simply living in England working
for the crown. It was long believed that Robert himself later died of leprosy, but researchers
have since disproven that he had the disease. The victorious siege of York castle not only
shows King Edward that Wallace isn't going away, but that his son is not equipped to lead a war.
While the real Longshanks never tossed his son's suspected lover out a window, it is true that
Prince Edward was left in charge of England while his father campaigned in Flanders. Following his
son's embarrassing defeat, the king sends Isabella to meet with Wallace and discuss terms for peace.
Enamored with Wallace's legend, Isabella is eager to meet him, and while he rejects her peace offer
Isabella learns about Murron and why Wallace is fighting. Her infatuation with the Scottish
warrior swells. However, Isabella's interactions with Wallace - and their eventual romance - were
entirely fabricated... mainly because the real Isabella of France was only around two years old
when most of these battles were taking place. The real Isabella and Prince Edward married 10 years
after the events of the film, and while she was known for diplomatic skills and political prowess,
her film counterpart is an otherwise fictionalized portrayal of the real person. Isabella returns to
England to inform the king of Wallace's refusal to surrender only to learn that she was merely a
ploy - while she met with Wallace, Longshanks was assembling an army to invade Falkirk and squash
the rebellion. The Battle of Falkirk is portrayed with a little more accuracy than Sterling Bridge
but it's still riddled with deviations from history. In the film, Longshanks personally
leads an army of fourteen thousand men against Wallace's army of eight thousand, but before the
battle even begins the Irish conscripts hired by the king abandon their posts and joined the Scots.
There's absolutely no evidence to support this actually happened, and its inclusion seems like
a strangely unnecessary justification for the fictional character of Stephen and "his island."
As for the battle itself, the fighting techniques on both sides are fairly accurate, although
there's nothing to indicate the Scots ever set the enemy on fire. Wallace's tactic of defending
against cavalry with long pikes did occur and was surprisingly effective - for a while. Eventually
Longshanks changed gears and ordered his archers to reign a storm of arrows upon the Scots,
who suffered major casualties from the onslaught. In the film, the other nobles betray Wallace and
flee the fight, leaving him and his men to die. While it's true the nobles departed the battle,
it's most likely because it seemed unwinnable rather than any pledge of loyalty to the king.
They left so they could potentially regroup and come back stronger. Believing the fight to be won,
the king and his officials leave the scene. Wallace chases them down but is stopped and
nearly killed by none other than Robert the Bruce, who has sided with the king.
Wallace is crushed by the betrayal and Robert himself feels guilty and spares Wallace's life.
While the real Robert was known for switching sides frequently, he never betrayed Wallace
as he does in the film. English records show Robert wasn't even at Falkirk. In both film and
real life, the battle of Falkirk was a devastating defeat for Wallace. What certainly did not happen,
however, was Wallace's subsequent and sometimes ludicrous vengeance against the nobles that
betrayed him. In reality after the battle at Falkirk, Wallace resigned his title of guardian
of Scotland to his trusted ally Robert the Bruce. Wallace then traveled to France to secure Ling
Philip's support, but after years spent begging for aid the talks fell through and Wallace
returned to Scotland alone in 1304 to continue the fight. Wallace meets with the remaining nobles,
who propose that he go to Edinburgh and speak with Robert the Bruce. They will then pledge their
loyalty to Wallace and finally take back their country. But Wallace is betrayed upon arrival
as the nobles were scheming with Robert's father to capture Wallace. While the details surrounding
Wallace's actual capture are scant, it appears that Longshanks had just put an open bounty on
Wallace's head and an English loyalist arrested him somewhere near Glasgow. Wallace is sent to
London where he stands trial for his crimes against the king. He is given the choice to
confess and receive a quick death, or deny and be purified by pain. Never in my whole life
did I swear allegiance to him. Not one to take the easy option, Wallace denies his crimes because he
doesn't consider himself a subject of the crown. This much is true. Wallace's execution in the
film is surprisingly less brutal than what the real man endured - we witness him stretched,
bound, castrated and finally beheaded, but not before shouting that famous final word
It's impossible to tell whether Wallace actually said this, but given the fact that
he had been dragged naked through the city by a horse before being hung, disemboweled,
and decapitated, it's more likely he wasn't even conscious. As the movie's voiceover says,
William Wallace was then cut into various pieces that were sent to different parts of England and
Scotland to dissuade any further uprisings. In the closing moments, Robert the Bruce leads an army of
Scots at the Battle of Bannockburn. Ready to face off against English forces after contemplating a
deal with the crown, he channels the spirit of William Wallace and charges into action
as Wallace's disembodied voice states that the Scots eventually won their independence in 1314.
This satisfying moment is also misleading - while the Scots were victorious at Bannockburn,
a landmark victory in the battle for Scottish freedom, they were not granted independence until
14 years later when King Edward II was deposed and killed. And one final note - while the movie never
specifically states who the title refers to, the name Braveheart is actually attributed to Robert
the Bruce. According to legend, on his deathbed Robert asked a knight to remove his heart and take
it on a crusade against god's enemies - which they reportedly did, hurling the organ at the Saracens
during a battle in Spain. Ultimately, Mel Gibson made a rousing epic war drama that won a number
of awards, boosted Scottish tourism and became a prominent fixture in entertainment. But Braveheart
also clearly earned its reputation as one of the most historically inaccurate movies of all time!
Thank you for watching, if you like what you see please subscribe to our Joblo videos channel,
tell your friends who like this sort of content and turn on the bell to receive
notifications for all our latest videos. We are an independent company and we appreciate your support