Historical inaccuracy
Randall Wallace, the writer of the screenplay, has acknowledged Blind Harry's 15th century epic poem The Acts and Deeds of Sir William Wallace, Knight of Elderslie as a major inspiration for the film.[25] In defending his script, Randall Wallace has said, "Is Blind Harry true? I don't know. I know that it spoke to my heart and that's what matters to me, that it spoke to my heart."[25] Blind Harry's poem is not now regarded as historically accurate, and although some incidents in the film which are not historically accurate are taken from Blind Harry (e.g. the hanging of Scots nobles at the start) there are large parts which are based neither on history nor Blind Harry (e.g. Wallace's affair with Princess Isabelle). In addition, the film portrays the battle of Bannockburn as an unplanned, spontaneous final stand when in fact it was a planned and organised battle which was won by Robert the Bruce.
Elizabeth Ewan describes Braveheart as a film which "almost totally sacrifices historical accuracy for epic adventure".[26] The "brave heart" refers in Scottish history to that of Robert the Bruce, and an attribution by William Edmondstoune Aytoun, in his poem Heart of Bruce, to Sir James the Good Douglas: "Pass thee first, thou dauntless heart, As thou wert wont of yore!", prior to Douglas's demise at the Battle of Teba in Andalusia.[27]
Sharon Krossa notes that the film contains numerous historical errors, beginning with the wearing of belted plaid by Wallace and his men. In that period "no Scots ... wore belted plaids (let alone kilts of any kind)."[28] Moreover, when Highlanders finally did begin wearing the belted plaid, it was not "in the rather bizarre style depicted in the film."[28] She compares the inaccuracy to "a film about Colonial America showing the colonial men wearing 20th century business suits, but with the jackets worn back-to-front instead of the right way around."[28] "The events aren't accurate, the dates aren't accurate, the characters aren't accurate, the names aren't accurate, the clothes aren't accurate—in short, just about nothing is accurate."[29] The belted plaid (feileadh mór léine) was not introduced until the 16th century.[30] Peter Traquair has referred to Wallace's "farcical representation as a wild and hairy highlander painted with woad (1,000 years too late) running amok in a tartan kilt (500 years too early)." [31]
In 2009, the film was second on a list of "most historically inaccurate movies" in The Times.[2] In the 2007 humorous non-fictional historiography An Utterly Impartial History of Britain, author John O'Farrell notes that Braveheart could not have been more historically inaccurate, even if a "Plasticine dog" had been inserted in the film and the title changed to William Wallace and Gromit.[32]
Randall Wallace has defended his script from historians who have dismissed the film as a Hollywood perversion of actual events.[citation needed] In the DVD audio commentary of Braveheart, Mel Gibson acknowledges many of the historical inaccuracies[citation needed] but defends his choices as director, noting that the way events were portrayed in the film was much more "cinematically compelling" than the historical fact or conventional mythos.
Jus Primae Noctis
Edward Longshanks, King of England, is shown invoking the right of Jus Primae Noctis, allowing the Lord of a medieval estate to take the virginity of his serfs' maiden daughters. Critical medieval scholarship regards this supposed right as a myth, "the simple reason why we are dealing with a myth here rests in the surprising fact that practically all writers who make any such claims have never been able or willing to cite any trustworthy source, if they have any."[33][34]
Occupation and independence
The film suggests Scotland had been under English occupation for some time, at least during Wallace’s childhood, and in the run-up to the Battle of Falkirk Wallace says to the younger Bruce “we can have what we never had before; a country of our own”. In fact Scotland had been invaded by England only the year before Wallace's rebellion; prior to the death of King Alexander III it had been a fully separate kingdom.[31]
Portrayal of William Wallace
As John Shelton Lawrence and Robert Jewett write, "Because [William] Wallace is one of Scotland's most important national heroes and because he lived in the very distant past, much that is believed about him is probably the stuff of legend. But there is a factual strand that historians agree to", summarized from Scots scholar Matt Ewart:
Wallace was born into the gentry of Scotland; his father lived until he was 18, his mother until his 24th year; he killed the sheriff of Lanark when he was 27, apparently after the murder of his wife; he led a group of commoners against the English in a very successful battle at Stirling in 1297, temporarily receiving appointment as guardian; Wallace's reputation as a military leader was ruined in the same year of 1297, leading to his resignation as guardian; he spent several years of exile in France before being captured by the English at Glasgow, this resulting in his trial for treason and his cruel execution.[35]
A.E. Christa Canitz writes about the historical William Wallace further: "[He] was a younger son of the Scottish gentry, usually accompanied by his own chaplain, well-educated, and eventually, having been appointed Guardian of the Kingdom of Scotland, engaged in diplomatic correspondence with the Hanseatic cities of Lübeck and Hamburg". She finds that in Braveheart, "any hint of his descent from the lowland gentry (i.e., the lesser nobility) is erased, and he is presented as an economically and politically marginalized Highlander and 'a farmer'—as one with the common peasant, and with a strong spiritual connection to the land which he is destined to liberate."[36]
Colin McArthur writes that Braveheart "constructs Wallace as a kind of modern, nationalist guerrilla leader in a period half a millennium before the appearance of nationalism on the historical stage as a concept under which disparate classes and interests might be mobilised within a nation state." Writing about Braveheart's "omissions of verified historical facts", McArthur notes that Wallace made "overtures to Edward I seeking less severe treatment after his defeat at Falkirk", as well as "the well-documented fact of Wallace's having resorted to conscription and his willingness to hang those who refused to serve."[37] Canitz posits that depicting "such lack of class solidarity" as the conscriptions and related hangings "would contaminate the movie's image of Wallace as the jovenlandesally irreproachable primus inter pares among his peasant fighters."[36]
Portrayal of Isabella of France
Isabella of France is shown having an affair with Wallace prior to the Battle of Falkirk. She later tells Edward I that she is pregnant, implying that her son, Edward III, was a product of the affair. In reality, Isabella was three years old and living in France at the time of the Battle of Falkirk, was not married to Edward II until he was already king, and Edward III was born seven years after Wallace died.[38][39] (This aspect of the plot may however have been inspired by the play The Wallace: a triumph in five acts by Sydney Goodsir Smith, which unhistorically has Isabella present at the Battle of Falkirk longing for a "real man".)
At that time it would also have been unusual to send a woman on a diplomatic mission into a war zone, and she would have been risking imprisonment or execution by admitting that she was carrying a child which was not her husband's. (See the Tour de Nesle Affair and the fate of two of Henry VIII's wives.)
Portrayal of Robert the Bruce
Mel Gibson as William Wallace wearing woad.
Robert the Bruce did change sides between the Scots loyalists and the English more than once in the earlier stages of the Wars of Scottish Independence, but he never betrayed Wallace directly, and he probably did not fight on the English side at the Battle of Falkirk (although this claim is made by one important mediaeval source, John of Fordun's chronicle). Later, the Battle of Bannockburn was not a spontaneous battle; he had already been fighting a guerrilla campaign against the English for eight years.[31] His title before becoming king was Earl of Carrick, not Earl of Bruce.
Portrayal of Longshanks and Prince Edward
The actual Edward I was ruthless and temperamental, but the film exaggerates his character for effect. Edward enjoyed poetry and harp music, was a devoted and loving husband to his wife Eleanor of Castile, and as a religious man he gave generously to charity. The film's scene where he scoffs cynically at Isabella for distributing gold to the poor after Wallace refuses it as a bribe would have been unlikely. Edward died on campaign and not in bed at his home.[31]
The depiction of the future Edward II as an effeminate gays drew accusations of homophobia against Gibson.
We cut a scene out, unfortunately. . . where you really got to know that character [Edward II] and to understand his plight and his pain. . . . But it just stopped the film in the first act so much that you thought, 'When's this story going to start?'[40][better source needed]
The actual Edward II, who fathered five children by two different women, was rumoured to have had sensual affairs with men, including Piers Gaveston who lived on into the reign of Edward II. The Prince's male lover Phillip was loosely based on Piers Gaveston.
Gibson defended his depiction of Prince Edward as weak and ineffectual, saying,
I'm just trying to respond to history. You can cite other examples – Alexander the Great, for example, who conquered the entire world, was also a gays. But this story isn't about Alexander the Great. It's about Edward II.[41]
In response to Longshank's defenestration of the Prince's male lover Phillip, Gibson replied that "The fact that King Edward throws this character out a window has nothing to do with him being lgtb ... He's terrible to his son, to everybody."[42] Gibson asserted that the reason that Longshanks kills his son's lover is because the king is a "psychopath".[43] Gibson expressed bewilderment that some filmgoers would laugh at this murder.
Wallace's military campaign
The reference to "MacGregors from the next glen" joining Wallace shortly after the action at Lanark is dubious, since it is questionable whether Clan Gregor existed at that stage, and when they did emerge their traditional home was Glen Orchy, some distance from Lanark.[44]
Wallace did win an important victory at the Battle of Stirling Bridge, but the version in Braveheart is highly inaccurate, as it was filmed without a bridge (and without Andrew jovenlandesay, joint commander of the Scots army, who was fatally injured in the battle). Later, Wallace did carry out a large-scale raid into the north of England, but he did not get as far south as York, nor did he kill Longshanks' nephew.[31] (However this was not as wide off the mark as Blind Harry, who has Wallace making it to the outskirts of London, and only refraining from attacking the city after an appeal by the Mayor's wife.)
The "Irish conscripts" at the Battle of Falkirk are also unhistorical, there were no Irish troops at Falkirk (although many of the English army were actually Welsh) and it is anachronistic to refer to conscripts in the Middle Ages (although there were feudal levies).[31]
Accusations of Anglophobia
Sections of the English media accused the film of harbouring Anglophobia. The Economist called it "xenophobic"[45] and John Sutherland writing in The Guardian stated that: "Braveheart gave full rein to a toxic Anglophobia".[46][47][48] According to The Times, MacArthur said "the political effects are truly pernicious. It’s a xenophobic film."[47] The Independent has noted, "The Braveheart phenomenon, a Hollywood-inspired rise in Scottish nationalism, has been linked to a rise in anti-English prejudice".[49] Contemporary Scottish writer and commentator Douglas Murray has described the film as "strangely racist and anti-English".[50]
