Braveheart

Surely one of the great rousing films to stir the Scottish soul, and Mel Gibson plays the role of legendary Scottish hero William Wallace with a vitality to set kilts a'quiver. Braveheart set a theme that Gibson repeated in his later film, The Patriot, that of a quiet man, wanting only hearth and home, who is roused to action by the brutality of the English. Starting with Wallace's early years, when as a boy he witnesses his father's murder in an act of treachery, the story takes us through his marriage to a doomed woman, and the terrible revenge he takes upon her killers.

Directed by Mel Gibson, the film introduces a panoply of characters, some historical and some fictional. The English king, Edward the First, commonly called 'Longshanks' and the 'Hammer of the Scots,' is viciously portrayed by Patrick McGoohan, the film's ranking villain. His son Prince Edward, played by Peter Hanly, was a source of controversy when the film was released because of the blatant homosexual stereotype. Angus MacFadyen appears as Wallace's sometime compatriot, the devious Robert the Bruce. And the central love interest, the French Princess Isabella, is beautifully played by Sophie Marceau.

Wickedly funny and movingly tragic at turns, the film features magnificently gory battle scenes and resounding speeches in the quest of Scottish liberation from the English yoke.

Wallace's story makes a great film, but the film does not make a good history. It draws too much from mythology and from Hollywood. So, what about the historical Wallace? Is he anywhere in the film?

Very little is known about the historical William Wallace and many sources are divided on the details. Most of the legend is based on a poem by Blind Harry, written many years after the events it depicts. Wallace is purported to be the son of Sir Malcolm Wallace, born around the same time that Edward Longshanks was crowned King of England in 1274. After long wrangling with various contending Scottish nobles hot for the crown, Edward I declared himself King of Scotland in 1296. Wallace's victory at Sterling Bridge in 1297 was the highwater mark of his campaign to oust the English usurper. Wallace's defeat at Falkirk in 1298 began a long period of flight culminating in his execution in 1305. The following year Robert Bruce was crowned King of Scotland and continued the rebellion. Edward I died in 1308. In 1314, Robert Bruce defeated the English at Bannockburn, establishing Scotland's independence.

Although fun to watch the film is more mythological than historical with a time-line does not even pretend to follow the facts. Seven years separate Wallace's defeat at Falkirk and his execution. Nine years intervene between Wallace's death and Bruce's victory at Bannockburn. Edward I outlived Wallace by three years. And then there's the matter of the passion between the princess and Wallace.

Princess Isabella Capet could never have had a love affair with the famed Scottish rebel. Isabella, born in 1292, was a bit too young for Wallace. As a royal child, whose virginity was a matter of state security, she was undoubtedly surrounded by numerous no-nonsense attendants. Betrothed to Prince Edward in 1299, she became his wife in Boulogne Cathedral only a month before he was crowned king in 1308. When her foot first touched British soil, Wallace had been dead for three years.

Edward II, whose sexual orientation remains a matter of debate, did manage to sire two sons and two daughters before he was deposed and murdered in 1327. It is doubtful his father knew or cared about his sexual activities. He certainly never pitched his son's lover from a window.

Minor quibbles, of course, arise. The use of woad -- the blue war-paint of the ancient Celts -- was long out of vogue by 1300. The kilt was not part of Scots' fashion yet nor were there clan tartans until the 19th century recreation of Scots culture. And while the coming together of the lowland Scots, the Highlanders and the Irish is a heartwarming statement of Celtic unity, they would have been hard pressed to communicate since the latter two groups would have known only Gaelic.

One quibble I can almost forgive, glaring though it is. The pivotal victory at Sterling Bridge is depicted in the film -- without a bridge. Historically, the battle was fought as the heavily armored English knights rode across a high wooden bridge. The Scots did not wait for the enemy to assemble on the far side of the bridge. Their fierce attack pinned the English on the bridge, which eventually collapsed under the weight of the mounted knights.

Budget and safety considerations played a large part in the film-makers' decision to recast the bridge battle as a field fight. And while I may find this an acceptable liberty, the use of a chevaux de friese (long pointy poles for skewering heavy cavalry) was a poorly chosen field tactic because of a basic law of physics: objects in motion tend to stay in motion. Foot soldiers, even with 16 foot spears, will not stop a charging onslaught of armored horses. Even in death, the weighty beasts and their riders will still have forward momentumsufficientt to crush the troops waiting at the nether end of the poles.

A little research might have provided a more accurate response to the mounted cavalry problem. It was about this same time that a few hundred independent-minded Swiss peasants drove out 20,000 of Hapsburg's finest with a coordinated ambush on a narrow mountain pass. While men hurled rocks down from the mountain above (and there's nothing an armored knight can do about gravity), a fierce unyielding charge of halberds drove the Hapsburg knights back so that they ran down their own infantry. Men, mounted and on foot, were forced to dive into a near freezing lake where more laws of physics awaited them. Morgarten, November 15, 1315 -- now, that's tactics.

Still, as long as you know the truth, you can enjoy this film's mythic version of William Wallace.  Just remember that this is a Hollywood and not history.

Want to know more?