Like many, I had the opportunity to see the movie Braveheart years ago. And like many I was fascinated by the figure of the Scottish hero who fought for the freedom of his country against the English.
My degree of fascination and my passion for History led me to read the biographies of the two great contenders in this history:that of Edward I written by Marc Morris and that of William Wallace written by Chris Brown. It's not that I can consider myself a great expert on the subject, but I think I can contribute some historical knowledge.
After many years I decided to watch Braveheart again . And from minute one I was surprised by its lack of historical accuracy; I understand that it is a work of fiction and that certain historical licenses can be allowed, but it seems excessive to me to include facts that historically have been proven could not have occurred or misrepresent the date of a historical event in more than fifteen years.
I'm not trying to be a purist with historical fidelity, but simply to highlight the main historical irregularities of the film.
1.- Scotland 1280:Braveheart It begins by narrating that in 1280 Scotland had been left without a king or heir and that the Englishman Edward I had decided to seize the Scottish throne, murdering nobles of the country, which had caused a great impression on the boy William Wallace; this was the reason for his hatred of the English that led him to lead the opposition against them. All of these claims are false. King Alexander III of Scotland died in 1286, not 1280, and had an heiress, Margaret of Norway, who died in 1290. From there, a process began for the election of a new king. In this process, the English king Edward I intervened as arbitrator (appointed by the way by the Council of Scottish nobles), and as a result of it John Balliol was elected King of Scotland. It was not until 1296, when Edward I demanded troops and obedience from King John of Scotland and King John objected, that the King of England's desire to rule Scotland became apparent. The claim in the film that in 1280 Edward I invaded Scotland and murdered his nobles makes absolutely no sense historically.
2.- The presence of Elizabeth of France in Scotland:here I have to give the film some reason when it insinuates that the son of Edward I, the future Edward II of England he was homosexual and in a relationship with a man named Piers Galveston. But it is impossible that the wife of the future Edward II, Elizabeth of France, was involved in the campaigns of the English army in Scotland during the reign of his father-in-law Edward I. And of course, it seems beyond the most fertile imagination (except that of Mel Gibson) suggest that she could have a love affair with William Wallace. More than anything because William Wallace's campaigns took place in the years 1297 and 1298 and his arrest and execution took place in 1305; Elizabeth of France would have been no more than five years old in 1297 and did not arrive in England, after marrying Edward II, until 1308 when both Wallace and Edward I had already died.
3.-William Wallace's hatred of the English:the film claims that the death at the hands of the English of William's father in 1280 was the origin of his hatred to them. It has already been commented that the English did not invade Scotland until 1296. And it is at this time that there is the first historical evidence about William Wallace:he leads a group that assassinates the sheriff appointed by the English in Lannark County. It is not clear the reason that leads him to do so; it seems clear that it is in response to the death of a relative, his father or his lover. Wallace hides in the forests of Selkirk where every day he is joined by more Scots unhappy with English domination. And from there he launches, along with Andrew Murray, the attack that propelled him to fame and the position of Guardian of Scotland when he defeats an English army at the Battle of Stirling in 1297.
4,- The Battle of Stirling Bridge. As the name suggests, that battle took place at Stirling Bridge. And not only that, but the bridge was precisely the decisive tactical element of the battle, since the English could only cross it two by two, the Scots took advantage of the moment when only half of the invading army had crossed the ford to attack and defeat him, while the other half of the English could do nothing but watch their compatriots being massacred. Well, in the depiction of the Battle of Stirling in the film, the bridge is conspicuous by its absence.
5.- The role of Robert Bruce:I recognize that he is a character that is not easy to qualify. From the outset, it should be clarified that in the process that led to the appointment of John Balliol as king of Scotland in 1292, the candidate for the throne named Robert Bruce was not the protagonist of the film, but his grandfather. When he dies and his son disregards Scotland and settles in England, the Robert Bruce who plays the leading role in the film enters the scene. I insist that his role in history is not easy to qualify, but it is not the one assigned to him in Braveheart . On several occasions he sided with the English, but it does not seem that he betrayed Willam Wallace in the battle of Falkirik (the two ended up fleeing from it on horseback) nor did he have anything to do with the capture that ended with the execution of Wallace; it was a personal commitment of Edward I, who spared the lives of all the Scots who opposed him in the campaign he undertook in 1304 except Wallace. And we must remember that Robert Bruce ended up achieving the independence of Scotland after his victory over Edward II at Bannockburn in 1314, although for this he assassinated his main rival John Comyn in the church of Dumfries in 1306,
6.- The legal conflict:it is true that there was a legal conflict between the sentences dictated by John Balliol and the possibility of the English authorities to revoke said sentences. But it was a question of boundaries raised by a Berwick landowner; Certainly not as the film suggests of the exercise of the right of pernada of an English gentleman on a Scottish bride.
For more detailed information on the historical reality of Scotland in the times of William Wallace and Robert Bruce, you can consult the blog entries on the death of King Alexander III, on the battle of Falkirk and on the accession to the throne of Robert Bruce.