(Insert Course)
(Insert Instructor)
(Insert Date)
Andrew Fisher’s “William Wallace” is a historical book on the life of William Wallace. The story contained in the book gives a symbolic and memorable portrayal of a man who led the Scottish against the British in a quest for freedom. Mel Gibson’s 1995 film “Braveheart” is a historical war film. It depicts the story of William Wallace, a 13th Century war leader who commanded the Scottish rally for independence against King Edward I of England. Even though the film tries to be historically accurate, some of the events and individuals depicted do not match up to the real tale on William Wallace. After reading “William Wallace” and watching “Braveheart,” it is clear that Mel Gibson felt a need to deviate from the historical account of William Wallace. Gibson did this to spice up the story and make it more entertaining for the viewers. There are clear differences, similarities, and implications between the two accounts.
One of the major differences between “Braveheart” and “William Wallace” is the portrayal of his supposed wife. Historically, the supposed name of Wallace’s wife was Marian Braidfoot; however, the movie depicts his wife as a woman named Murron. (Gibson 95) Gibson intentionally changed her name in order to avoid confusion with Maid Marian, of the Robin Hood legend. (Wyman 1) Historical accounts give various anecdotes on Marian’s death. Some accounts state that Marian’s incineration found her alive in her home with her children while other accounts state that the Sheriff of Lanark hanged her to death while she was pregnant. The movie depicts that it is from Marian’s death that Wallace went on a killing spree against the English. (Gibson 95) However, historical accounts are adamant that Wallace waged war against the English because of the tyrannical rule of Edward I. While history speculates that Wallace incinerated the town of Lanark and killed its sheriff out of rebellion, (Fisher 14) the movie depicts Wallace’s actions as those fueled by vengeance.
In the film, Edward I’s judgment on the “prima nocta” is the sole reason for the murder of Wallace’s wife. (Gibson 95) Historically, this is highly unlikely since Edward I was not as depraved as the movie portrays him to be. On the other hand, a similarity exists between the film and the book that Edward I had a meeting with Scottish noblemen to discuss on the true heir of the Scottish throne. Conversely, the film deviates from the historical account when it shows that Edward I had the nobles killed. This is false as historical accounts tell of how Edward I shocked the noblemen by asking them to pay homage to him as a superior lord. Edward I granted their offer of three weeks to deliberate on the matter. (Fisher 25)
Many characters in the film who portrayed Wallace’s supposed comrades did not exist in history. Morrison (the man whose wife underwent “prima nocta” at the onset of the film), Hamis (Wallace’s best ally), Hamis’ father, Campbell, and Stephen (the crazed Irishman) did not exist. Gibson created these characters to fit into the plot of the film. (Wyman 1) The only actual comrade that existed in both the book and the film was Andrew Moray. He was a successful military commander who also led a simultaneous rebellion against the English. Later, they united their rebellions and waged war against the English. (Fisher 47) In the film, many Scottish characters appear to be wearing kilts. This is a great historical inaccuracy since kilts gained popularity in the 17th Century rather than the 13th Century. (Wyman 1)
The most historically inaccurate account in the film is the retelling of the Battle of Stirling Bridge. Admitting the glaring error, Gibson stated that it was an intentional alteration to make the battle scene more visually appealing. The film correctly portrays the English cavalry as being an unstoppable force. This is historically true as estimates reveal that there was deployment of over 50,000 Englishmen in the Battle of Stirling Bridge. (Fisher 59) However, the film is incorrect in its depiction that Edward I left the quelling of the rebellion to his son. Historical accounts indicate that Edward I left the command of the army to very capable military commanders. These men were Hugh de Cressingham and John de Warenne. Additionally, the film explains that there was an offer of “King’s Terms.” This is inaccurate as “William Wallace” states that James Stuart, a Scottish nobleman, offered the English an offer of peace. (Fisher 67) The actual Battle of Stirling Bridge took place on a bridge; however, the film shows that it took place on a field. Gibson may have felt that a battle scene on a bridge would not be as appealing as one on a field. The film depicts that Wallace’s men chose twelve-foot spears as their weapons of choice. Historically, the twelve-foot spears were never present in the Battle of Stirling Battle but rather appeared later at the Battle of Falkirk. (Wyman 1)
The film expresses that when Wallace became a knight, he got the title “High Protector of Scotland.” (Gibson 95) This is contrary to historical accounts, which give the title “Guardian of Scotland.” Moreover, Wallace‘s knighting was under the name of Balliol and after this, he guided Scottish rule under that name. (Fisher 74) The film coincides with the book in Wallace’s invasion of Northern England and Newcastle; however, the invasion of Northern England developed some inaccurate scenes in the movie. First, it is not true that Wallace mailed York’s head to Edward I. Secondly, Edward I did not throw Phillip, his son’s aide, out of a window. Thirdly, Phillip is not a real person. He is a character loosely based on the image of Piers Gaveston, who, as rumor has it, was homosexually involved with Prince Edward. Edward II executed Gaveston years later. (Wyman 1)
In the film, Edward I sends Princess Isabella to negotiate a peace deal with Wallace. (Gibson 95) Historically, Edward I did not send Princess Isabella. In actuality, historical records reveal that Princess Isabella was married off to Prince Edward when she was 16, three years after the execution of Wallace. (Fisher 87) Therefore, it is impossible that Princess Isabella met Wallace. It defies the rumor that Princess Isabella may have carried Wallace’s child.
The film depicts Wallace’s use of oil at the Battle of Falkirk to burn the English soldiers. (Gibson 95) This is inaccurate to the real narration since Wallace used schiltrons, the twelve-foot spears, at the Battle of Falkirk. In the same battle, the film depicts that Edward I is so suspicious of his Welsh archers that he sends in Irish soldiers first. However, Edward I effectively used his Welsh archers to devastate the Scottish troops with swarms of arrows. The film depicts Wallace wandering around the countryside, rampaging and killing Englishmen. In actuality, the noblemen of Scotland assigned Wallace a new responsibility as an ambassador for Scotland in Europe. (Fisher 85)
“Braveheart” differs from “William Wallace” in how it explains Wallace’s capture. In the film, Gibson falsely gives the viewers a belief that Robert the Bruce’s father was the one who set a trap for the capture of Wallace at Edinburgh. (Gibson 95) In the book, Sir John de Menteith was responsible for the betrayal and capture of Wallace. This happened in Robroyston in place of Edinburgh. Even though the film is accurate on the portrayal of Wallace’s hearing in London, its portrayal is hurried and speedy. Additionally, Edward I was not present during the whole trial and torture. (Fisher 112)
At the end of the film, the Battle of Bannockburn appears to have happened immediately after the execution of Wallace.(Gibson 95) This is contrary to historical accounts, which put the battle at around 1314. Robert I, who fought against the English, led by Edward II, led it. The film falsely shows that an English general led the troops in the Battle of Bannockburn. Moreover, Scotland did not achieve its independence after the Battle of Bannockburn. This recognition came much later in 1328, thirteen years following the execution of Wallace. (Wyman 1)
Conclusively, there are clear differences, similarities, and implications between Gibson’s “Braveheart” and “The Wallace.” Despite these variations between the two accounts, “Braveheart” is not obsolete. Even though it does not accurately match the real historical account, it retells Wallace’s story in an entertaining and unique way. This not only adds to its cinematic appeal, but also improves the longevity of Wallace’s story. By watching the movie, future generations will easily appreciate the real history behind it.
Work Cited
Braveheart. Dir. Mel Gibson. Perf. Mel Gibson. 1995. Motion Picture.
Fisher, Andrew. William Wallace. New York: Birlinn, 2012. eBook: Document .
Wyman, Mark. “MK Wyman.” 19 December 2011. MK Wyman Web site. 8 March 2014.
