Randall Wallace, who wrote 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.[57] 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."[57] Blind Harry's poem is not regarded as historically accurate, and although some incidents in the film that are not historically accurate are taken from Blind Harry (e.g. the hanging of Scottish nobles at the start),[58] there are large parts that are based neither on history nor Blind Harry (e.g. Wallace's affair with Princess Isabella).[6]
Elizabeth Ewan describes Braveheart as a film that "almost totally sacrifices historical accuracy for epic adventure".[59] It has been described as one of the most historically inaccurate modern films.[6] Sharon Krossa noted that the film contains numerous historical inaccuracies, 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)." Moreover, when Highlanders finally did begin wearing the belted plaid, it was not "in the rather bizarre style depicted in the film". 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."[60] In a previous essay about the film, she wrote, "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."[61] The belted plaid (feileadh mór léine) was not introduced until the 16th century.[62] 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)."[63] Caroline White of The Times described the film as being made up of a "litany of fibs."[64] Irish historian Seán Duffy remarked that "the battle of Stirling Bridge could have done with a bridge."[65]
In 2009, the film was second on a list of "most historically inaccurate movies" in The Times.[6] In the humorous non-fictional historiography An Utterly Impartial History of Britain (2007), author John O'Farrell claims 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".[66]
In the DVD audio commentary of Braveheart, Mel Gibson acknowledged the historical inaccuracies but defended 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.[6]
Jus primae noctis
Edward Longshanks is shown invoking Jus primae noctis in the film, allowing the lord of a medieval estate to take the virginity of his serfs' maiden daughters on their wedding nights. 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."[67][68]
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, "[W]e'll have what none of us have ever 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.[69]
Portrayal of William Wallace
As John Shelton Lawrence and Robert Jewett writes, "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.[70]
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."[71]
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."[72] 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 morally irreproachable primus inter pares among his peasant fighters."[71]
Portrayal of Isabella of France
Isabella of France is shown having an affair with Wallace after the Battle of Falkirk. She later tells Edward I she is pregnant, implying that her son, Edward III, was a product of the affair. In reality, Isabella was around 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.[73][6] The breakdown of the couple's relationship over his liaisons, and the menacing suggestion to a dying Longshanks that she would overthrow and destroy Edward II mirror and foreshadow actual facts; although not until 1326, over 20 years after Wallace's death, Isabella, her son Edward, and her lover Roger Mortimer would invade England to depose - and later allegedly murder - Edward II.[74]
Portrayal of Robert the Bruce
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 probably did not fight on the English side at the Battle of Falkirk (although this claim does appear in a few medieval sources).[75] Later, the Battle of Bannockburn was not a spontaneous battle soon after Wallace's execution; he had already been fighting a guerrilla campaign against the English for eight years.[76] His title before becoming king was Earl of Carrick, not Earl of Bruce.[77][78] Bruce's father is portrayed as an infirm leper, although it was Bruce himself who allegedly suffered from leprosy in later life. The actual Bruce's machinations around Wallace, rather than the meek idealist in the film, suggests the father-son relationship represent different aspects of the historical Bruce's character.[79][80] In the film, Bruce's father betrays Wallace to his son's disgust, acknowledging it as the price of his crown, although in real life Wallace was betrayed by the nobleman John de Menteith and delivered to the English.[81]
Portrayal of Longshanks and Prince Edward
The actual Edward I was ruthless and temperamental, but the film exaggerates his negative aspects 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. Furthermore, Edward died on campaign two years after Wallace's execution, not in bed at his home.[82]
The depiction of the future Edward II as an effeminate homosexual 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?'[83]
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 homosexual. But this story isn't about Alexander the Great. It's about Edward II.[84]
In response to Longshanks's murder of the Prince's male lover Phillip, Gibson replied: "The fact that King Edward throws this character out a window has nothing to do with him being gay ... He's terrible to his son, to everybody."[85] Gibson asserted that the reason Longshanks kills his son's lover is that the king is a "psychopath".[86]
Wallace's military campaign
"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.[87]
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 Moray, 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's nephew.[88]
The "Irish conscripts" at the Battle of Falkirk are unhistorical; there were no Irish troops at Falkirk (although many of the English army were, in fact, Welsh).[89]
The two-handed long swords used by Gibson in the film were not in wide use in the period. A one-handed sword and shield would have been more accurate and more efficient, since in the enemy army there were a lot of archers.[90]
