Braveheart and Historical Accuracy: A Comprehensive Analysis

Robert the Bruce's iconic film Braveheart, directed by the legendary Mel Gibson, has captured the hearts (and imaginations) of many viewers worldwide. However, the film's adherence to historical accuracy has often been questioned. In this article, we will delve into some of the inaccuracies present in the film and discuss why it might not be a faithful portrayal of history.

Common Misconceptions About the Film's Historical Accuracy

Many viewers and critics agree that very little in Braveheart stands up to historical scrutiny. The film takes several liberties with the historical events it attempts to depict, often for the sake of cinematic drama. Some of these inaccuracies are quite significant, and understanding them can greatly enhance one's appreciation of the film's artistry rather than its historical fidelity.

A Critique of Margaret?Morgan's Perspective

Academic Margaret Morgan notes several inaccuracies in the film Braveheart. She points out that the battles in the film, while based on genuine historical events, are not necessarily reenacted accurately. The portrayal of William Wallace (played by Mel Gibson) as a kilted, woad-smudged Highland warrior is a clear anachronism. Wallace was a figure of the Late Middle Ages, and the kilt and use of woad for body paint are not historically accurate for that period.

Morgan also explains that King Edward I of England was not interested in conquering Scotland for personal gain. His primary motivation was to put an end to repeated incursions by Scottish kings into Northern England. The notion that Edward I was simply seeking to install John Balliol as king of Scotland, only to be aggrieved by Balliol's subsequent actions, is a simplified and somewhat inaccurate portrayal of the historical context.

Debunking the Term 'Braveheart'

Another significant inaccuracy in the film is the use of the term 'Braveheart.' Morgan states that this nickname was not known to Wallace during his lifetime but rather emerged as a posthumous poetic term associated with Robert the Bruce. The name does not accurately reflect Wallace's identity and legacy.

The Fictionalization of Historical Events

Further into the analysis, Morgan highlights that many of the events and interactions portrayed in the film are fictional inventions or dramatic fabrications. For instance, the scene where William Wallace bonks (paraphrasing) Edward II's wife is historically inaccurate. Morgan notes that Edward II's wife was only 10 years old and not yet married, which makes the described interaction both unlikely and inappropriate.

Morgan emphasizes that the script for the film is largely based on real events but often rearranged, glorified, and twisted to create a more compelling cinematic experience. This creative license was not necessarily intended to be historically accurate but rather to engage audiences emotionally and entertain them.

A Personal Perspective from a Historical Expert

Christopher Marlowe's Edward II, a play that also explores the complex political and sexual dynamics of the period, offers valuable insight. An expert on the historical period, especially Marlowe's play, and its context, asserts that many of the elements woven into the film Braveheart are anachronistic. For example, the notion that King Edward I threw out a friend of his son from a window, an incident now known to be fictional, is explored in detail.

The perspective of someone who has researched and published on Edward II and taught it to students sheds light on the exaggerated nature of certain scenes. It reveals that historical figures, including William Wallace, were far more complex than the simplified narrative presented in the film. The film’s depiction of Wallace as a heroic figure who fights for love and freedom is more aspirational than historically accurate.

Assessing the Film for Its Artistic Merits

While many criticize Braveheart for historical inaccuracies, it is important to acknowledge that the film holds significant artistic value. The directorial techniques employed by Gibson, such as the intricate depiction of the 'fog of war,' add depth to the film. The concept of ‘friendly fire’ being a common occurrence in medieval battles provides an authentic and realistic portrayal of the risks and chaos of war.

Ironically, the inaccuracies in the film highlight the differences between history and fiction. The 'Braveheart' moniker itself, which might never have been used by Wallace, underscores the romanticized and mythologized nature of the film. While the film may not provide a faithful historical account, it does succeed in evoking a powerful emotional response from its audience.

Conclusion

Overall, while Braveheart is a remarkable piece of cinema that has left a lasting impact, it should be evaluated with a critical eye regarding its historical accuracy. The film's liberties with the truth often serve to enhance its emotional and dramatic resonance. As Margaret Morgan and other historians have pointed out, the film is more of an artistic rendering than a documentary. Nonetheless, the film remains a significant part of cinema history, and its impact on popular culture cannot be overstated.