First off, let me start out by saying that, on its own. Braveheart is a fine movie. It’s entertaining, visually stunning and has a good pace. There’s just one problem. The only thing in the movie that has any truth to it is that they got his name right. Other than that, the movie is a complete fabrication. The history nerd within me just can’t stand it.
Because of this, I feel it important to outline the history here for you, the REAL history, so you can see what I’m talking about.
So, let’s start with the back story. The very first line of the movie, “the king of Scotland had died without an heir”, is wrong. The first line! First off, the movie opens in 1280, while Alexander III didn’t die until 1286 (Interestingly, he died in what may be Scotland’s first recorded impaired driving accident. Drunk, he fell from his horse while racing to have sex with his new wife.) That whole scene where the nobles were slaughtered in the barn never happened as Alexander was still king at that point. Second, he actually had TWO heirs when he died. The first in line for the throne was the unborn child his wife was carrying. Unfortunately, she miscarried shortly afterwards. Next in line was his granddaughter, Margaret of Norway. Though only 7 at the time, once word reached Norway of the king’s death, she was sent back to Scotland. However, as children were wont to do in those days, she caught a fever and died during the voyage back. As an interesting side note, Margaret had already been promised in marriage to Edward, the prince of Wales. Had she lived, Scotland and England would have ended up as one kingdom in any case. Anyway, NOW there was no heir to the throne. And here is where the trouble really began.
The Scottish elders gathered to choose a new king. There were several claimants, but by far the two strongest were Robert the Bruce (grandfather to the Robert the Bruce in the movie) and John Balliol. What made the choice so difficult was that there were two systems of laws governing Scotland at the time. Scottish law was used in the north, while Norman law was used in the south. Robert was Alexander’s nephew through his mother, which made him the closest relation. According to Scottish law, he had the strongest claim. However, according to Norman law, a claim to the throne could not pass through a woman. Under Norman law, Robert had no claim to the throne at all. To make matters even worse, the two most powerful families in Scotland at the time were the Bruces and the Comyns (who were cousins to John Balliol) and the two families hated each other. The dispute over the crown meant that Scotland was edging ever closer to civil war.
It was in desperation that the Scottish elders turned to Edward I of England and asked him to act as an independent arbitrator. Edward, sensing an opportunity to expand his power, agreed under the condition that he be recognized as King Paramount of Britain, sort of a king of kings. The elders agreed to his condition, as did the two claimants.
In the end, Edward decided on John Baliol as the new king of Scotland. It has long been suspected that he made the choice based on which of the two men he felt would be easiest to control. Robert the Bruce retired from public life after the decision was made. He officially passed his claim to the throne to his grandson.
Within a few years, it had become increasingly obvious that John Balliol had been the right choice, at least as far as Edward was concerned. He proved to be weak willed, giving in to Edward’s demands at every turn.
Then, in 1296, came a turning point. England was engaged in a war against France and had been for many years. Edward demanded that John join him in the war by sending Scottish troops. This was too far. Scotland had always had close ties to France. King John refused, and signed a treaty with France instead. Edward sent his army north in retaliation. They defeated the scots in the battle of Dunbar in 1296. John Baliol was arrested and thrown in the Tower of London. This is when the war for Scottish independence started. All that arguing in the movie about who should be king was long over with. The Scots saw John Balliol as their legitimate king, wrongfully imprisoned. It wasn’t until many years later that Robert the Bruce would press his own claim to the throne.
Now, let’s look at the characters in the movie.
First, Edward I of England. In the movie he’s portrayed as a viscous psychopath, but the reality is far different. it is true that he was ruthless in battle and had a seemingly unquenchable thirst for conquest, but from an English perspective he is considered a great king. Throughout his reign, he showed a deep understanding of the struggles faced by common people. He organized the first parliament so that commoners could have a say in the running of the country. He also overhauled the court system to make it fairer. Was he a brute, yes. Was he the monster that he is portrayed as. No. He was more complicated than that. He certainly did not die when Wallace did. He didn’t die until 1307. On campaign against Robert The Bruce, he caught dysentery and died a few days later.
Then, there is Edward, Prince of Wales (who would go on to become Edward II). I don’t think a character was ever developed that so personifies Mel Gibson’s homophobia as this one does. He is shown as effeminate, weak willed and spineless. None of these are accurate. First off, he was most definitely not a homosexual, though he may well have been bisexual. By all accounts, he seems to have enjoyed sexual relations with as many women as possible, including but not limited to his wife. His friend in the movie, who I’m assuming is meant to be a representation of Piers Gaveston, was rumored to be his lover but may have been more like a brother to him. In truth, Edward II was probably closer to the portrayal of Edward I in the movie. He was tyrannical and cruel by all accounts (which might explain the rumors). He was overthrown in 1327.
A special mention must be made of Isabella. It is implied that she had an affair with William Wallace and that her child (the future Edward III) was really his. I certainly hope not as she was only 10 when he died. In Truth, she did not even arrive in England until two years later.
Robert the Bruce is next. He seems to be a troubling character for historians to figure out. The movie seems to spend a lot of time trying to explain why he changed sides so often, showing him as a noble man who is continuously mislead by his father. In truth, he was probably simply a ruthless man who went in whatever direction he saw the greatest advantage in. At the beginning of the war, the Bruces were aligned with Edward, but probably saw it more as being aligned AGAINST the Comyns. In truth, he mostly stayed out of the war until after Wallace’s defeat at Falkirk, at which point he was named as joint Guardian of Scotland with John Comyn. ThenIn 1206, after Wallace’s death, he killed his chief rival and claimed the throne of Scotland for himself (He killed John Comyn in a church, an act that saw him excommunicated). If anyone still doubts his ruthlessness, he spent as much time fighting his rival scots as he did fighting the English. He was known for riding into battle with the heads of his rivals tied to his saddle. His father (yet another Robert the Bruce) most definitely DID NOT have leprosy, though it is now believed that our Robert the Bruce may have died of the disease.
Now we come to William Wallace himself. To begin with, he wasn’t a commoner as depicted in the movie. His father was a minor noble. He probably grew up in what we might consider a middle class upbringing today. He had at least two brothers, not just the one. They also didn’t die when he was young. In fact, his father and at least one of his brothers are recorded as having fought at Bannockburn with Robert the Bruce. William Wallace also wasn’t a highlander. I suspect that Mel Gibson was afraid that his audience would not recognize the south of Scotland, where it’s all grasslands and rolling hills. Wallace was born in the south and that is where he fought his campaigns. In addition, he was an archer, not a swordsman. The sword he carried into battle was ceremonial, given to him when he became protector of Scotland. He was married, but there is some debate as to the actual name of his wife. She bore him at least two children. If she was killed by the English, as she was in the film, it wasn’t until later. This is perhaps the most egregious error in the film. The man who wrote the screenplay, Randall Wallace, is a descendant of William Wallace. Yet, in his script, he wipes out the entire male line. He literally wrote himself out of existence. Go figure. He was also much more of a brute than he is depicted. Rumor is that he wore the skin of an English soldier as a belt after the battle of Sterling. Many of the battles he fought are completely misrepresented (which we will get to), as was his fighting style. He was a brilliant strategist at guerilla type warfare, but never would have engaged in the open warfare shown in the film. Lastly, he was not betrayed by Robert the Bruce. It was a knight named John de Mentieth who captured him and turned him over to the English. The manner of his death is more or less accurate, except for the yelling out “freedom” at the end. In truth, he probably would have been unable to yell out anything at that point.
As for Wallace’s friends, they were all created for the movie. None of them existed in real life. There is mention of a Stephen of Ireland fighting with Wallace, but the idea that it was King Stephen is ridiculous.
Before we move on to the battles, I would also like to mention that tartans did not come into use for hundreds of years after Wallace’s life. The late 1700’s in fact.
Now, let’s talk about Sterling, or, as some would call it, Sterling BRIDGE! You may notice the emphasis I put on that last word. As we shall see, it’s because the fact that the battle was fought at the site of a bridge is actually quite important. To begin with, it should be noted that William Wallace was not the only rebel leader in Scotland at the time. There was an equally well known leader in the north, Andrew Moray. The idea that Wallace just showed up to find an army already assembled by the nobles is utter nonsense. It was Wallace and Moray who led their own armies into the field. It was those two men who collaborated on the strategy. And this is where the BRIDGE comes in. They picked Sterling to gather specifically because of the BRIDGE. It was, in fact, the base of their entire strategy. You see, both men were acutely aware that Scotland could not beat the English in a fair fight. They also knew that, as the English drove north, they would have to cross the bridge at some point. They both saw the makings of a very clever trap. As the English approached, they saw the Scottish forces arrayed on a field on the other side of the bridge. Assuming that the Scots would observe the rules of chivalry (that the English would be allowed to cross the bridge and form up before battle), they sent their forces across. The foot went first, followed by the cavalry. When a large portion of the infantry had crossed, the Scots attacked. About half the Scottish forces had been hiding to either side of the bridge. They converged, trapping the confused infantry between them. With no room to maneuver, they were being slaughtered. In desperation, the soldiers attempted to retreat back across the bridge and ran smack into the cavalry who were still trying to cross. In the end, the English were forced to destroy the bridge and retreat. A later attack on the English supplies led to even more casualties. After the battle, Moray AND Wallace were given the title of Protector of Scotland. Moray, unfortunately, had been wounded during the battle and died a few days later. That is why no one has ever heard of him, while Wallace is still considered a hero.
Next up is the sacking of York. Never happened. Period. Wallace, as a guerilla tactician would never even have considered such a thing. The Scots did spend several months rampaging across northern England, but they never attacked any fortified areas.
After that came Falkirk, Wallace’s greatest defeat. Again, the movie has the Scots and the English engaging in open battle, which was not Wallace’s style. Falkirk was an open battle, which is why Wallace lost. However, the battle really happened by accident. The truth is, Wallace’s forces were shadowing the English invasion force, harassing the rear and destroying the English supplies. Their hope was that the English would run out of food and go home, which is very nearly what happened. Instead, the English got lucky. Wallace, believing the English to be far away, made camp at Falkirk. He didn’t realize that the English forces were actually quite close. When English scouts found the Scots, the English marched through the night to meet them. The end result was a massive Scottish loss, as they were ill equipped to take on the English archers and heavy cavalry. In the end, the cavalry and infantry pinned the scots in place while the bowmen took them apart. One thing the movie got right was that Edward did give the order for his bowmen to open fire, even as his own troops remained in the line of fire. There is some contention regarding the Scottish cavalry, who did retreat at the beginning of the battle. It is hotly debated whether they simply ran away or whether they recognized the battle was lost and acted to preserve what cavalry they had. Either way, there is no evidence to suggest betrayal, or that it had been arranged beforehand. Also, there is proof that Robert the Bruce was NOT involved in the battle. He was not even in Scotland at the time.
Falkirk does seem to have been a turning point for Robert the Bruce, however. Until that point, he had been allayed with Edward. After Falkirk, he appears to have taken on the Scottish cause. He even accepted the title of Protector of Scotland after Wallace’s resignation from the post. Wallace, of course, continued the fight until his capture and execution eight years later.
Last, we come to the battle of Bannockburn. The movie gives the impression that Robert came to Bannockburn to pay homage to the English, which is not true at all. By the time of the battle (1314), Robert had been fighting the English (as well as opposing Scots) for over seven years. Also, once again, the Scots did not approach the English in open battle. They instead surprised the English forces on the march, which meant that all the English troops were out of position to launch an effective defense. Most importantly, the English bowmen were at the rear of the formation rather than the front, so they could not be used against the Scottish spears.