“History vs Hollywood: The Truth Behind Braveheart” Essay

For the most part the Hi f competent surrounding Braveheart is accurate, but at that place atomic number 18 several significant people and howeverts which simply do non match up diachronicly. After watching the movie and reviewing the history screw it, it becomes clear that Hollywood felt they indispensable to alter several things in order to make the film more entertaining to their spectators. It is interesting to comparison the depiction of the geniuss and events portrayed in the movie to the actual history that surrounds them.The story behind the movie Braveheart focuses on the historic tale of Sir William Wallace of Elerslie, One of Scotlands greatest heroes. During the 12th century King Ed contendd I of England, also know as Longshanks, ruled Scotland. After returning to his childhood home, William Wallace planned on becoming a farmer and raising a family. After side soldiers had murdered his wife however, his attention became focused on the side byplay of Scotland. U nited together with other Scottish warriors, Wallace decides to bypass negotiations and fight the English on his own terms (C afterwards-Roszak 12).William Wallace did indeed lead a ascent against English occupation in 1296, and was victorious at the conflict of Stirling connect and lost at Falkirk. After he was captured, he was tried and penalise as shown in the film. Several other prospects of his lifespan were not accurately depicted however. Wallace was portrayed as a poor man who was on the QT married right before he got in trouble with the English. Actually, he was a comm onenessr who was well educated, and if he wasnt complex with the war he may have been a scholar. All landed manpower were required to sign the Ragman Roll, which bound ein truthone who signed it in loyalty to Englands King Edward I. Those who refused, like Wallace, were outlawed (William Wallaces42). In response, Wallace and Andrew Moray organize other outlawed men into an army.Moray was killed at St irling Bridge and was lovely much forgotten, he was not even mentioned in the film. This seems like a rather large omission considering Moray was Wallaces co leader, and compete a fairly large part in the early resistance. Wallace was involved in a romantic relationship, but he wasnt able to settle down because he was spending most of his adult life at war or in hiding. He was with her when the English find his hiding place, andshe stalled them to give Wallace eon to escape. Unfortunately she was killed along with the rest of the kinsperson because they helped Wallace (Clater-Roszak 12).One aspect of the film that I discovered to be actually inaccurate was with the character Robert the Bruce. In the film he betrayed Wallace at the battle of Falkirk by knocking him of his horse, but there is absolutely no severalize of Wallace ever being betrayed during Falkirk. In fact, there are no accounts of Bruce even being involved with the battle of Falkirk. If he was, he most plausibl y didnt do anything significant. In my opinion this can really wound the reputation of Robert the Bruce, who was one of Scotlands bravest and most heroic kings. It is true that Bruce linked the English ranks for a short time, but he most belike did nothing drastic. Bruce actually finished what Wallace had started after returning to Scotland.Another aspect of Bruce that didnt seem right was when he decided to fight the English at the last minute before submitting to them. I think this was honourable another attempt at Hollywood to try and spice up the movie a little more. In the film it was Robert the Bruces fuss who convinced him to side with the English, but there is also no manifest that would support this either. Bruce and his father did have whatever disagreements, but historically they didnt fight nearly as much as depicted in the film (ALBA-Robert). Overall I think Robert the Bruce as a character was portrayed pretty accurately by Angus MacFadyen, but numerous of the e vents that surrounded him were not.During the battle of Falkirk, it shows Wallace going into battle against the wishes of the other Scottish commanders. ground on the accounts I have seen, it appears that this isnt very accurate. Wallace actually didnt want to fight at Falkirk, he felt that the field didnt provide the same advantages presented at Stirling Bridge. When the battle of Falkirk began during the film, all of the Scottish nobles cast out Wallace which ruined his plans and may have cost him the battle. Historical documents say that the buck did indeed withdraw, but the circumstances are unknown (William Wallace meet). It seems Hollywood wants us to assume that Wallace was simply abandoned just as they cherished us to assume that Wallace was betrayed by Robert the Bruce.As for the character of Isabella of France, many historical liberties were taken with her as well. There is no evidence that Wallace and Isabella even met, permit alone had a romantic relationship toget her (William Wallaces 43). Hollywood always thinks they have to include some kind of Romance in their movies, and I suppose they felt this was their only opportunity to do so in this film. Not only that, but the fact that Isabella marries Edward II during the time of Sir William Wallace is just ridiculous. He wasnt even alive when that happened. History shows that Wallace was penalize in 1305, while Isabella married Edward II three years later in 1308 (Clater-Roszak). One final note on Isabella is that she seemed ashamed of the inhuman treatment that the English displayed towards the Scots. In reality she had her husband, Edward II, imprisoned and murdered as alluded to in the film, but then launched her own attack on Scotland (William Wallace Welcome).As far as the actual battles, they seemed pretty authentic except for a few details. First of all, the Scottish warriors did not stand in one big group as shown in the film, but in rotund formations called Schiltrons. This is a for mation that Wallace actually perfected. In one scene it appears to the viewer that Wallace has invented the use of spears against the cavalry out of desperation, but this is actually a very ancient practice used during the Roman times (William Wallace Welcome). new(prenominal) than these few instances the battle scenes seem pretty accurate.It is very obvious that Hollywood changed around some of the History surrounding Braveheart, but this is to be expected. In order to make a successful film they felt they needed to add whats exciting while omitting what isnt. The film was obviously a huge success because of its entertainment value, but this is unfortunately at the set down of the actual History behind the story. To be fair there are many aspects of Sir William Wallaces life that are unclear or unknown, and the meaning of the majority of the characters is correct. This does not excuse some of the major inaccuracies however, and it is unfortunate that some peoples perception of t his era and its respective events are unaccompanied based on this film.Braveheart. Dir. Mel Gibson. Perf. Mel Gibson, Sophie Marceau, Patrick McGoohan,Catherine McCormack, and Brendan Gleeson. Paramount Pictures, 1995.Clater-Roszak, Christine. Sir William Wallace ignited a flame. troops History,Oct97, Vol. 14 Issue 4, p12, 3p. 16 Nov 2003. Academic Search PremierWilliam Wallaces adventure through time. British Heritage, Oct/Nov96, Vol. 18 Issue6, p42, 2p. 16 Nov 2003. Academic Search PremierALBA- Robert the Bruce. Highlander Web Magazine. Aug 1998. 16 Nov 2003. http//www.highlanderweb.co.uk/wallace/bruce.htmWilliam Wallace Welcome to the Truth. Highlander Web Magazine. Aug 1998. 16Nov 2003. http//www.highlanderweb.co.uk/wallace/thetruth.html