CivilWarTalk.com - A free and friendly Civil War community.
CivilWarTalk.com
The Dispatch Depot at Civil War Talk  

Go Back   The Dispatch Depot at Civil War Talk > The Haversack - Special Features & Discussions > Book & Movie Review Tent
Register FAQ Members List Chat Calendar Mark Forums Read

Book & Movie Review Tent Post a book review, or discuss your favorite period movie.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-05-2008, 08:53 AM
Blockaderunner's Avatar
Corporal (250+ posts)
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Northumberland, England
Posts: 307
Default Braveheart

I mentioned William Wallace and 'Braveheart' on another thread. So this would seem to be the right place to continue.
Braveheart is set in late 13th century Scotland and Stars Mel Gibson as Wallace, with Patrick Mcgoohan (The Prisoner, Dangerman) as Edward I of England. English forces are occupying much of Scotland. The reasons are not really explained in the movie, but this came about in a roundabout manner.
Edward I was invited to arbitrate on a dispute over the rightfull successor to the Scottish throne. Edward agreed on the condition that he be recognised as 'Lord Paramount of Scotland'. John Balliol was eventually crowned King of Scotland. Not long after, Balliol renounced his allegence to Edward. Edward responded by sacking the border town of Berwick-upon-Tweed and defeating the Scots army at the Battle of Dunbar.
History does not accurately record Wallace's early life or the way in which he became leader of the forces in the war against the English. But suffice to say, he did raise an army.
The movie depicts two battles. Those being Stirling Bridge and Falkirk. Stirling Bridge was Wallace's finest hour. The movie however is completely inaccurate. The two opposing armies are shown facing each other across an open field. Had this been the case, then Wallace's army would have been slaughtered. The Earl of Surrey, who commanded a force of English troops and 'freelances' from throughout Europe, heavily outnumbered Wallace. Surreys army contained a large number of mounted knights. Wallace also had mounted knights but far fewer. Exact numbers are impossible to determine, but Surrey probably outnumbered Wallace by three to one. What really happened was military genius on the part of Wallace. The two armies faced each other across a burn. A narrow bridge crossed the burn between the two armies. Totally confident of victory, the English knights charged across the bridge. However, the bridge was narrow. Horsemen could only cross two abreast. Wallace would allow only so many across before cutting them down and pressing forward. This caused a crush, as retreating English knights pressed against advancing English foot soldiers. The bridge collapsed leaving troops stranded without support. They were massacred. None of this is depicted in the movie. I read a review a long time ago, where a Scottish historian questioned the movie makers about the innaccuracies. He was told "the bridge just got in the way". He replied "Yes, thats what the English found". The battle scene does graphically depict medieval warfare. Mens heads are split with axes, skewered on lances and sliced with swords.
The other battle depicted is Falkirk. This was Wallace's biggest defeat. His opponent in this battle was Edward himself. As a prince, Edward had served in several engagements in England and was a formidable foe. This battle was fought in open country, although the exact location is lost to history. Wallace arranged his troops in squares of pikemen, called schiltrons. Again the movie gets this wrong. The armies are shown in lines facing each other. Edward used his secret weapon, the longbow. The Scottish schiltrons were mown down then finished off with a charge of mounted knights. The movie contains some moments of silliness during this battle. Edward has recruted some Irish foot soldiers. When asked if he wants to use the bowmen, Edward replies "Arrows cost money! Use the Irish". The Irish charge towards the Scots, then stop and offer friendly greetings. Edward then uses his bowmen, killing both Irish and Scots. Just didn't happen.
Wallace was later captured and taken to London. He was hung drawn and quartered. This too is depicted in the movie.
As a true historical account of Wallace, the movie must be taken with a pinch of salt. As an action adventure movie with dramatic battle scenes then the movie is good but not excellent. Star of the show is undoubtedly Patrick Macgoohan, he really hams it up as an evil Edward I. The movie is much loved in Scotland due to the anti English sentiment. During the battle scenes, Wallace paints his face blue with woad. In the years following the release of the movie, Scottish football and rugby fans were often seen with blue faces when their team was losing to England. Sorry, playing England. A statue was recently erected at the foot of the Wallace monument. Unbelievably this is actually modelled on Mel Gibson. Wallace remains to this day the most legendary character in Scottish history. A direct equivalent would be the legend of Stonewall Jackson to the south.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-05-2008, 06:48 PM
Nytram01's Avatar
Private (25+ posts)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Portsmouth, Hampshire, England
Posts: 31
Default

This is a subject I can be a bit of an authority on as I do know quite a bit about the Scottish War of Independence that Braveheart was supposed to depict.

If anyone is interested in the ignored parts of the movie I would be happy to post it but until then I shall keep this short.

Braveheart was simply an action movie with very little historical accuracy attatched to it. It misses out too much to be considered anywhere near a true representation of the war but it was enjoyable none the less.
__________________
"I would rather be a private in Virginia's army than a general in any army that was going to coerce her." - General JEB Stuart CSA
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-05-2008, 06:52 PM
Blockaderunner's Avatar
Corporal (250+ posts)
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Northumberland, England
Posts: 307
Default

Did you find the innaccurate battle scenes as annoying as I did?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-05-2008, 07:09 PM
Nytram01's Avatar
Private (25+ posts)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Portsmouth, Hampshire, England
Posts: 31
Default

I didn't when I first saw the film but I didn't know as much about the war then and now it does annoy me somewhat.

Not as much though, it has to be said, as the inaccurate way they portrayed Robert the Bruce,
__________________
"I would rather be a private in Virginia's army than a general in any army that was going to coerce her." - General JEB Stuart CSA
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-05-2008, 09:10 PM
samgrant's Avatar
Brig. General, Trivia Mod
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Land of Lincoln (and Grant)
Posts: 3,792
Default

What about the "mooning"?

-
__________________
-

"It was a very peculiar time." - Franklin D. Cossitt

Ancestors in USA Army: 6th IA Inf, 11th IL Cav, 1st AL Cav; 122nd NY Inf; 6th MI Cav; 35th MA Inf; 100th IL Inf; 1st CO Inf/Cav; 22nd IN Inf

Ancestors in CSA Army: 2nd TN Inf (Walker's), 9th TN Cav (Bennett's/Ward's); 2nd TX Inf
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-05-2008, 09:42 PM
Blockaderunner's Avatar
Corporal (250+ posts)
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Northumberland, England
Posts: 307
Default

Probably also innaccurate.

They didn't wear kilts at the time.

Quite funny though
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-05-2008, 09:56 PM
Corporal (250+ posts)
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 368
Default

I see Braveheart much in the same light as I do 300; a great guy movie. Though a little bit better directed, and with just a bit more historical accuracy (though not much, as I am reading) it is just a great action movie. Not a movie that I would show to a history class and say "Hey, here is how it really went down." That would be sheer stupidity. It is a movie I would watch for the blood, the guts, and the inspiration to stand for freedom. But that is about it.
__________________
"The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize." George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796

http://tothegloryoftheunion.blogspot.com/
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-06-2008, 10:04 PM
mt155's Avatar
Private (25+ posts)
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Clear Lake, Texas
Posts: 140
Default

How about Mel Gibson's accent? Was that accurate? Wink Wink, nudge nudge!

Mike T.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-07-2008, 06:11 AM
Blockaderunner's Avatar
Corporal (250+ posts)
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Northumberland, England
Posts: 307
Default

Almost as good as Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-07-2008, 11:21 AM
ole's Avatar
ole ole is online now
Brig. General, Mod
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 6,547
Default

I'm certainly glad to get that information from the steed's mouth.

Inspired to insert "Braveheart" into the infernal machine and imagine the scenes just described.

Thanks, gentlemen! (See what you've started?)

ole
__________________
I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.1.0
Back to top
Bringing the American Civil War to Life. Copyright © 1999 - 2008, CivilWarTalk.com.
Site Design Version 4.2. - Website powered by Subdreamer CMS
The American Civil War | Forum | Resource Center | Image Gallery | Links | Site Map | XML | Donations