Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
About William Wallace and the movie Brave Heart..?
What part of the movie is untrue?
Oh wait.... but the beginning of the movie says
History is written by those who hanged the heroes.
I am actually watching the movie right now.
- 8 years agoFavorite Answer
Pretty much everything.
The movie's TITLE is misleading... traditionally, 'Braveheart' was a nickname used to refer to Robert the Bruce, not Wallace.
The movie opens with a caption telling us that, in 1280, Scotland's king had died without heir. In fact, Alexander III of Scotland lived on until 1286.
The 'Scots' of the movie bear no relation to actual medieval Scots.
The custom of painting the face with woad dates from the time of the Roman conquest - a thousand years before Wallace's time.
The 'belted plaids' (large kilts worn over the shoulder) date from the late 1500's, more than 300 years after the movie is set.
The actual costume of the medieval Scots was the 'Lang Liene' - a long linen shirt, like a nightshirt. It's long hem was worn hitched up and tucked through the belt.
The Lang Liene was traditionally dyed with saffron - it's other common name was the 'saffron shirt'.
The new garment of a wealthy man would have been bright orange, and the washed-out or cheaply dyed garments of the commoners would have been a pale peach colour.
Basically - they looked like bearded Hare Krishnas.
The line: 'playing outlawed tunes on outlawed pipes' refers to the suppression of Highland culture which took place after the Jacobite rebellions of the 1700's - five hundred years after Wallace.
Wallace himself is portrayed as being of noble ancestry, but basically a 'man of the people', raised as a common farmer.
The truth is that what little we know for sure all points to him always having been a member of the minor nobility - accompanied by servants, for example.
Crucially, the movie changes his cultural origin from Lowland Scots, and makes him a Highlander.
Wallace was not the first to rebel. There were minor, local rebellions going on across the country when Wallace became involved.
He was involved in a dispute at a local court, and ended up having to flee from arrest. He returned later with armed men and killed the High Sheriff.
There was no 'murdered sweetheart' involved. That version comes from a fifteenth century folk tale.
Now an outlaw, he joined the Sir William Douglas's forces. Douglas was involved in a rebellion along with several other Scots nobles.
However, this rebellion just fizzled out when the nobles who led it made peace with England, leaving Wallace and Andrew Moray alone with the remnants of the army.
The movie skips that whole sequence of events.
The 'Battle of Stirling' shown in the movie is very fictionalized. In fact it was the Battle of Stirling BRIDGE.
The rebels waited for a portion of the English forces to cross the bridge, then attacked, wiping out those who'd crossed while the others stood helplessly on the other bank.
A large percentage of those killed were not English at all, but Welsh archers. The movie, with its fictionalized message of 'Celtic' unity, would never have shown that.
There is a famous anecdote about Mel Gibson scouting locations for the film, and looking at the bridge.
"We can't use that", he said. "It's too narrow".
His guide said: "Aye... that's what the English found."
Piers Gaveston is shown in the film as Prince Edward's gay lover and murdered by King Edward I.
In fact, he was chosen by Edward I - impressed with his military achievements - as a mentor to the prince. He outlived Edward and was captured and executed by rival nobles during an (English) power struggle in 1312.
What else... y'know, there's just too much.
I mean, Robert the Bruce wasn't even AT the battle of Falkirk, where the movie shows him betraying Wallace.
(In fact Wallace escaped that defeat, and sailed to France to try and get King Philip IV to join the war.) Again, the movie ignores that whole sequence of events.
Isabella of France was only ten years old at the time of Wallace's death... and she did not even arrive in England until two years later.
Her son, the future Edward III, is shown in the film as Wallace's child. In fact, he was born 7 years after Wallace's execution.
Really... I could go on 'til the word-limit kicks in.
Basically, the movie is a cracking medieval adventure - but it's almost total fiction from start to finish.
Hope that helps!
- Anonymous8 years ago
Very little actual facts are known about William Wallace. Most of it is supposition and legend. He did exist. He did win a battle at Stirling Castle, not in the manner portrayed in the film though. When the English army had partially crossed the bridge the scots attacked and did indeed vanquish those on the wrong side of the bridge. The other half retreated to fight another day. The french lady, wife of the Prince, to wish he was supposed to have had a love interest and a child that would inherit the English throne by blood, was merely a young child living in France at the time. It never happened. Wallace never attacked the city of York, let alone capture it. Pure fantasy. The Irish and Welsh involvement as portrayed, was again pure fantasy. The whole sequence about Robert the Bruce and the betrayal was again rubbish. William Wallace was indeed captured and killed in the manner portrayed on film with the exception of the death moments. With luck Wallace had long since passed out prior to damage done to his body that would have caused death. Mr Mel Gibson is a disgruntled Australian that has a big downer on the British and in particularly the English as the harbinger of all evils. This is reflected in his films wherein the British are involved. Another such film is The Patriot. Even the much earlier made Gallipoli, which was indeed a disaster but still only typical of the earlier inadequate Generalship of the Great War and not specifically only an English thing.
- sneezewhizLv 68 years ago
Most of the part about Wallace's and King Edwards's motivations, relationships and friendships was made up. The main historical characters and events are pretty much real.
It is possible, but not likely, that the Scots mooned the English, just like in the movie. It is true that they didn't wear underpants.
Just about everything is untrue what else do you expect from Mel Gibson
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous8 years ago
Its based very loosely on fact,like most hollywood epics there is a lot of fiction in there!
- ?Lv 68 years ago
All of it. It is a load of b*llocks and Scots actually believe it is true.
- Anonymous8 years ago
All of it and the sad thing is that Scottish kids believe it is true!
- MaxiLv 78 years ago
A fictional American movie..........................