who was the real william wallace how historically accurate was the 1995 film braveheart
how important was the story of william wallace to the scottish independence movement
braveheart is one of the highest grossing historical films ever released
and is great entertainment but is it accurate historically
hello i'm colin heaton former soldier marine corps scott sniper history professor historian and book
author and we will answer these questions and other issues on this segment of forgotten history
contrary to the film william wallace was not a commoner he was a lower noble from
a farming family of the clan wallace he was born in 1270 in elders lee scotland
there is no evidence that he ever traveled to rome with his uncle argyle who was a created figure
edward ii also known as edward of carnarvon was in fact homosexual the son of edward the first
but he did not marry isabella the daughter of king philip iv of france also known as philip
the fair until 1308. the reigning monarch of scotland at that time was alexander iii
who died without an heir after his three-year-old granddaughter and his only surviving relative
died hence the struggle for the crown john baliel and the bellio clan claimed the throne
but they were opposed by robert the bruce's clan thus a civil war was ongoing
edward the first of england took advantage of this situation and began bribing scottish nobles and
baleal was established as de facto king at least for a time john baleal even forged an alliance
with france in his bid to keep the throne and fight edward the first as edward was responsible
for turning nobles against him edward the first response was predictable in the film wallace
attacked the town of llanak and killed the sheriff william hesselrig since the sheriff had killed his
wife but wallace was not even married at the time not depicted is the true story of wallace
joining lord william douglas in attacking scone forcing the english lord mayor william ormesby
to abandon the town wallace and douglas joined forces starting the scottish war of independence
culminating in the battle of sterling bridge on september 11th 1297 it is odd that the film did
not depict the battle of sterling accurately there was no bridge involved in the film but in fact
the bridge was the major tactical maneuver that wallace and douglas used to defeat the english
they had them channel into a very narrow kill zone trying to cross the bridge and as englishmen were
dying more were pushed into the breach eventually the bridge being old and made of stone collapsed
with hundreds of english soldiers falling into the river and drowning
the english were slaughtered as more english soldiers were forced in to replace the dead edward
knew that he was not going to win this battle wallace played by mel gibson uses a claymore
broadsword as his battle sword the problem is that claymore did not exist until the early 1400s
in the film the scots were kilts nice but they were just about 300 years too early the kilts
did not come into fashion until the 1500s and each clan had their own pattern design called a tartan
the second battle depicted was the battle of falkirk which the scots did lose
after the loss of falkirk wallace resigned as a guardian of the kingdom of scotland shortly
thereafter but remained dedicated to the cause of scottish independence running guerilla warfare
operations against british towns and garrisons he continued his guerrilla campaign against english
for several years and even traveled to france to have an audience with king philip iv of france
hoping to get an alliance against edward in the height of irony it was actually philip iv
of france in concert with his hand-picked pope clement v who denounced the knights templar on
friday the 13th 1307 which is where the legend of the day friday the 13th being unlucky comes from
philip would not engage in parley with mel gibson's character william wallace because
he was currently at that time in negotiations with edward the first longshanks and having his
young daughter isabella married to ever the second edward sung william wallace did meet with phillip
but due to the situation as described and philip owing the templars more money than
the kingdom of france had in his coffers gibson's character william wallace went back to scotland
without a treaty and with no french support however william wallace's legend had scattered
all over england wales and scotland everyone knew who he was but wallace's time was running out he
was betrayed by a scottish knight john de monteith who handed him over to the english authorities
in the year 1305 and he was executed on august 23rd of that year this part the film got right
he was hanged and revived before he could go unconscious emasculated then eviscerated with his
manhood and intestines displayed in front of him before he was drawn and quartered
which required removing the arms legs and the head in front of a live studio audience so to speak
and his arms and legs were carried to the four corners of the kingdom and his head was placed
on london bridge covered in tar as a reminder that edward would not tolerate rebellion on a
scale of one to ten for historical accuracy i rate braveheart at three yes there was a william
wallace yes there was an edward the first long shanks yes there wasn't robert the bruce there
were two battles sterling falcook and there was a princess isabella but she was not involved until
after the death of wallace and her father-in-law but it is a great entertaining movie and it did a
lot to inspire scottish nationalism even in the present day when the film was released
so therefore as far as a film for entertainment value i give it high marks and give it a 10 out of
10. we hope you enjoyed this segment of forgotten history please click like and subscribe for free
and please stay tuned and be engaged and informed send us comments if you have questions or even
show ideas and we will respond to all requests and comments as soon as we can thank you you