Talk:Braveheart/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Explanation of changes

Explanation of changes: no... one, not even the film's makers, contend it is historically accurate; it wasn't only Scottish historians, but historians in general who noted its inaccuracy; and the effect on the Scottish National Party, important as it may have been to them, is a footnote, not belonging in the initial paragraph. A list of inaccuracies might be useful here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Someone else (talk • contribs) 15:31, October 20, 2002

Fiction

This is a movie folks, not a documentary. It is fiction and any article about a bloody movie is no place for anyone to voice political opinions. What crap! ....DW — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.25.164.187 (talk • contribs) 18:06, December 8, 2002

Removed paragraph

The Scottish National Party benefited politically from the film Braveheart, receiving a 10% increase in the opinion polls after they handed out political leaflets to Scots cinema-goers before they saw the film. Mel Gibson spoke against this, saying he was appalled by the exploitation of the film for political purposes.

The political consequences of a film and the effects that a film has on society is an important thing for us to consider. The above paragraph should be reinserted after this article becomes more extensive. It is probably not appropriate to have half the text of the article about the political aspects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mav (talk • contribs) 18:14, December 8, 2002

Braveheart is no more an inaccuracy than any given Hong Kong depiction of Wong Fei Hung. Film isn't about historical accuracy, it is about using history to create drama. Philwelch 06:34, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That may well be true in general terms. But the section as written contains weasel phrases like "there is little doubt that its highly emotive portrayal ... contributed to a significant upsurge in Scottish nationalist sentiment" etc, and that this view has been taken by "some political commentators". Little doubt? In whose mind? Which 'political commentators'? Until evidence can be cited this section should not be included. It is also somewhat patronising to suggest that Scottish political sentiment was so limp that it needed a Hollywood blockbuster (with all the pejoratives that implies) to kick it into life. --Stevouk 13:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hm... There is no doubt that the number of historical inaccuracies in this film were a talking point, and there is no doubt that the film had political ramifications beyond its intention. So I think it would be worth mentioning a few of them. I actually think perhaps we should have an article Historicial inaccuracies in the film Braveheart or some such. We have a precedent in Historical Anomalies (Blackadder) Mintguy (T) 09:51, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the film is not a documentary. However, the inaccuracies are relevant to the film and should be included in the article, not relegated to a separate page. To be fair, some of the inaccuracies are minor and actually improve the story. I have added a paragraph stating this.

Some of the listed inaccuracies, such as the date of Isabella's marriage and omitting Edward I's second wife, are IMHO very minor and could be removed from the list.

I question one very significant plot point which may be in error. At the beginning of the film, Edward I is shown executing all the claimants for the Scottish throne. I could find no historical evidence for this, and I believe it is a significant plothole. Why would the other Scottish nobles ally with someone who killed everyone who was willing to cooperate with him? Are the murdered nobles the Competitors for the Crown of Scotland? If so, Edward actually cooperated with them and appointed John Balliol. If that had been in the movie it would have justified the nobles' cooperation and their internal rivalry. Corvus 00:52, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you are absolutely right. The mass hanging of Scottish nobles at the start is unhistorical, although it does occur in Blind Harry's epic poem "Wallace". There are a number of other significant errors, do people really want all of them in the article? If so, it could be expanded by some way. PatGallacher 01:34, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)

According to one source, the legend arose out of an error made by Blind Harry. This gruesome incident did not, in fact, occur. The poet invented it after misreading a line from an earlier poem about Robert the Bruce, which tells how certain Scottish nobles were hanged “in ar” (a legal term meaning “by a circuit court”). The poem “Barns of Ayr” describes the incident when 360 Scottish nobles, led by Wallace’s uncle, Sir Ranald Crawford, were summoned by the English to a conference. As each passed through a narrow entry, a rope was dropped around his neck, and he was hanged. Wallace, warned by a local woman, escaped and that night, he and his followers crept into the town, fastened the doors of all the houses lodging Edward’s 4000 soldiers, and set fire to them. Anyone who broke out was butchered by the waiting Scots. Even the prior of Ayr, apparently, together with 8 of his friars, took swords and dispatched the 140 soldiers billeted with them. “Men call it yet the Friars’ Blessing of Ayr,” says the poem. (Folklore, Myths and Legends of Britain (London: The Reader’s Digest Association, 1973), p. 519-20) --Polylerus 00:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Inaccuracy Rewrite

I created a whole section called "Historical Relevance" and really tried to tone down the accusatory nature of the existing criticisms. Yes, Braveheart is not really very historically accurate, but it IS a work of fiction. However, I think it's an interesting pheonomenon that people take movies like this as fact (is there a word for this elsewhere on Wikipedia??), which is why I left these complaints in. Robbyslaughter 00:04, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good job Robbyslaughter. I think many of the criticisms were triggered by the overly villainous portrayal of the English, and the romanticised portrayal of the Scots. I remember reading a newspaper article in England after the movie came out, suggesting that the "inaccuracies" in the movie were not mistakes or dramatic license, but a deliberate attempt by Gibson to promote Scottish nationalism. Corvus 1 July 2005 05:49 (UTC)

Most of the inaccuracies listed are absolutely correct, but I deleted a couple. I doubt if we have a contemporary description of Wallace's appearance (since e.g. the first Scots king of who we have a surviving drawing is James II of Scotland) and I suspect that descriptions of him as a tall man come from a while later e.g. Blind Harry. It is a matter of interpretation whether he can be accurrately called a "common man", he was one of the minor aristocracy, not quite an ordinary peasant, but probably seemed like an upstart to the major nobles; this is one point where we should give the filmmakers a bit of leeway. By the way, the name Wallace means Welsh, it is unclear whether this is because his ancestors came from Wales, or because of origins in the Brittonic kingdom of Strathclyde. PatGallacher 02:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I maintain the thing about Wallaces obviously Norman origins. a) "William" is a Germanic name, and interestingly one that is not commonly seen in Britain before the Norman invasion. b) "Wallace" means "foreigner" rather than "Welsh" properly speaking, though of course, both terms are closely related. Either way, it's clearly Germanic, and shows this family to be relatively new as compared to the Gaelic speaking people, or even families descended from later Norse settlers. Scottish nobility of Norman ascent is not unknown... just look at the early Stuarts. --Svartalf 14:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

"Wallace" was as a word denoting Britons was borrowed into Norman French too, it's ultimate Germanic origin should not be overly stressed. It should also be remembered that there were many Flemings settled in High Medieval Scotland, perhaps even more than English Germans, and they, speaking a language at the time very similar to (Middle) English, used a similar word (giving the modern word "Walloon"). If Wallace's father was really Alan/Alun/Ailin, rather than Maol Choluim/Malcolm, and if he came from Ayrshire (unlike Renfrewshire, almost totally Gaelic at this time), then it's highly likely his ancestors were Bretons or Breto-Normans, who arrived in western central Scotland in the French marcher lordships created by David I. In fact, if Ayrshire was his home, it would be these marcher lordships that would be the sole explanation, as there was only one/two burghs in the area, Ayr itself and Irvine. The version of French spoken in Brittany today is called the Gallo language (n/b Ws and G/Gus are interchangable, and for this period, the difference is largely orthographic). Equally, the simplest explanation may also be true, that he was descended (or his familiy attached itself to) a family with that surname who had arrived from the Anglo-Welsh marcher country, where the people were ideally suited to be settled in the Gaelic-English borderlands of the Clyde valley and around. The native Scots did not in general adopt surnames unless they were at the top of society (for instance, only the Chief of Clann Duib could call himself MacDuib(h) (Macduff)), so there is something foreign in Wallace's background. However, if it makes any difference, the two Celtic names of his two possible fathers, and various source accounts, indicate that he was certainly a Gaelic speaker; he repeatedly led armies of Galwegians and, in fact, one source reports that at his trial, he was accused of and admitted to, targetting and murdering speakers of the English language - Calgacus 14:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

a) Of course the Wallaces are Breto-Normans. It is a matter of record that the earliest recorded member of the family, Richard Wallace, was a tenant/vassal of an early member of the House of Stuart, during its humbler origins.

b) Sorry to contradict but Gallo is not "a version of French spoken in Brittany". It is related to French, being an Oïl language, but developed independantly, and can easily stretch the intercomprehensibility barrier. To boot, it was spoken only in Eastern Brittany (the West being Bretonspeaking... and it's no longer spoken much, anymore, being mostly reduced to quirks of pronunciation and vocabulary, heavier influences having turned into a sort of peasant patois. I won't contest that the word "Gallo" has the same sources as "Welsh" and "Wallon", though I'm checking on that. and the w/g difference is not "orthographic", it's a result of regional variations and evolution of languages.

c) Yes, the presence of a surname alone shows he was a member of the aristocracy, but the use of the first name William points to Franco-Norman traditions, as "William" was not much used in Britain before the Norman conquest, and noble families tended to be conservative in giving names to children. and he may well have spoken Gaelic, since before complete English domination, foreigners did tend to assimilate in Gaelic speaking societies, but this does not change his foreign origin or belonging to the aristocratic class. Plus there's the fact that Alan is a traditional Breton name, which the family might have imported into Scotland. and Yes, Assimilated or no, he was as Scotsman, but not a common man. --Svartalf 20:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

a) There you go, so I was right. ;) It's interesting, since I though the de Morville marcher lordship was the most likely. What, may I ask, are the arguments connecting Richard with William Wallace? b) I read the Gallo language article just as you did, so there's no need to repeat its contents. Gallo is a version of French, at least as much as "Scots" is a version of English. This would be a pointless argument to have, since it relates to the larger unresolvable controversy between language and dialect. Being a Oïl language, Gallo is a dialect of French to many people; if not to you, then that's fair enough. I doubt Gallo has the same source as Welsh and Walloon, and I'm guessing its borrowed from Breton Galleg, which means literally "Foreign (Gall)-ish(-eg)" , and is applied both to Gallo and French (compare Gaelic Beurla Ghallda) c) I think you misunderstood me. I was merely saying that Wallace's use of a surname, when he was relatively low-ranking, hints at a non-Gaelic cultural background. Alun/Alan, BTW, had Gaelic equivalents, esp. the name Alpin or Ailin (used by the Gaelic rulers of Lennox) (borrowed into Picto-Gaelic from Old English Ælfwine). I should also mention that there were a few people floating around a century or so before, native Gaels that is, with the name nickname Breatnach (Wallace could easily be a French translation if the name became hereditary). - Calgacus 21:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I maintain that Gallo is not a version of French, unless you mean that Provençal is a version of Italian, or English a version of Flemish or German. It is indeed a closely related language, but quite distinct, having evolved in its own direction and quite independantly of the "mainline" French language that took definitive form around Paris and higher in the Loire valley, and its speakers were not considered "French". The case is quite different from that of the relation of French to its cousins in Belgium and Switzerland. Of course, given the large differences that have evolved between the two, I'd hesitate before claiming that Scots and Irish Gaelic still are local versions of each other.Also, while Galleg is indeed Breton for French, I doubt that Gallo has the same source, the the Gallo speakers in Upper Brittany were Bretons to the same extent as the folk more to the West... and it was the language of the capital cities of Nantes and Rennes. --Svartalf 22:13, January 16, 2006

Yeah yeah, I told you this argument is a waste of time. You can go through the same stuff with any dialect, and you'll get the same things said on both sides. BTW, I'm aware of the dots in later Irish orthography; they're not relevant to the absent hs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk • contribs) 18:21, January 16, 2006

Of course I can, and will... I fear my friend that we fully disagree, and I can't find it in myself to find your position right. You seem to work with much to broad strokes for accuracy. --Svartalf 22:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I've just had the same argument too many times. Trust me, it ain't worth having; it just won't go anywhere. - Calgacus 22:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Andrew de Moray

Someone claimed that "The film also makes no mention of Andrew de Moray, Wallace's companion-in-arms and a major contributor at this battle [Stirling]." If I remember correctly, was it not Moray who brought the largest portion of the forces to the battle in the film (the one's who wanted to run) and was later told to flank the English with his cavalry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.23.99 (talk • contribs) 23:00, May 16, 2006

He was called 'Mornay' in the film, and yes, he did flank the English and later Mel Gibson smashed his head in with a ball and chain. Augustulus 00:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrong arrow heads

added the fact that the wrong arrow heads are used in the large battle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.144.245 (talk • contribs) 20:39, May 30, 2006

rating

Is it true that this movie was orignially givena rating of "X" or "NC-17" and that the violence had to be toned down in order to receive an "R" rating? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.207.253.96 (talk • contribs) 18:12, May 19, 2006

blue-dyed face

Why has that woad snippet been removed several times? ~~ "in battle, Wallace is shown painted blue with woad, a custom recorded of the ancient Picts, but one that had become extinct at least five centuries before his time, if not earlier." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.251.186.14 (talk • contribs) 21:34, June 3, 2006

Because that statement, besides being baseless on its own, is contradicted by English illuminated manuscripts which depict - and indeed define - Scots of this period as having, wait for it, blue faces! In the context, if we wanna be smart asses and tell everyone about "historical inaccuracies" in a Hollywood movie, then we should confine ourselves to statements which are themselves demonstrably accurate. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 01:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Mind quoting those manuscripts that show medieval Scots dyeing themselves blue? I know that illuminations can be extremely rich in information about the life in the middle ages, but I'd like to be able to check for myself... especially as, depending on context, such illustrations can also be remarkably imaginative... and since Norther Britain was well known as the country of the picti since Roman time, I'd really want to know if the monks depicted what they had seen by themselves, or just embellished the text... maps went on mentioning "here be dragons" in terra incognita areas long after Wallace's time. --Svartalf 20:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

See M. Camille, Mirror in Parchment: the Luttrell Psalter and the Making of Medieval England (1998). You'll need to check the index for precise page references. It's an amazing book, but sadly I don't have access to it at the moment. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

On the audio commentary Mr Gibson says, 'A lot of people asked me about this blue stuff, and it was actually pre-Roman ... but it looked so great, and I wanted to utilise it.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Augustulus (talk • contribs) 17:52, August 28, 2006

disconents at "historical accuracy" section

I've noticed that many of these are not backed by historical fact and many aspects indeed could have happened as they did in Braveheart. Two examples are:

24. "The playing of bagpipes in the film is also wrong - these would not exist in Scotland until the 16th century."

This is incorrect as there are instances, albeit it rare due to lack of literature on the subject, of usage of bagpipes before the 16th cent. including during the time of Robert the Bruce.

22. "Some of the characters who supported Wallace are seen saying his name in Gaelic after he has sacked the English fort. This is doubtful as Wallace was a Lowlander and would have spoken Scots as his first language as would those who lived around him."

Wallace is believed to come from the "lowlands" of the southwest of Scotland, an area at this time which was predominantly Gaelic speaking. Scots was still a relatively new and emerging "language", mainly conifined to the southeast. This can be seen with this map 100 years after the events of Braveheart

I think these and others should be changed or removed from the list, especially since most of them don't have a specific reference. Epf 12:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I find blunders like this embarrassing for the wikipedia community (I don't know anything about the bagpipes, so I'll refrain from comment). Scots didn't exist as a concept until the late 15th century anyways, and all Scottish armies during this war were almost totally Gaelic in composition; and even Wallace, whose first language may very well have been English, invaded England with an army of Galwegians, the Gaelic speaking people (by definition) of south-western Scotland, so obviously Gaelic would have been the language used. On Wallace's language, it is interesting to note that at his trial, one of the accusations lodged against him was attacking speakers of the English language, including women and children, an accusation that he reportedly did not deny. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Bagpipes have existed throughout Europe-and beyond-since ancient times. However, the pipes now associated with Scotland-the great pipes-do not in fact make an appearance until the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. If you want to hear the form of pipe music that would have been familiar to Wallace and his contemporaries you could do no better than vist Britanny in France or Galicia in Spain. I think it wrong to read too much into the accusation made at Wallace's trial that he attacked speakers 'of the English language'. This is just another way of saying English people. The victms of Wallace's atrocities in north-east England would have spoken essentially the same form of English as the people of south-east Scotland, where Gaelic was never established. There were likely to be many Gaelic speakers in Wallace's army; but it is just as likely that there were as many English speakers. This is a matter that cannot be proved one way or the other.

On a more general point I question the need of such a detailed 'historical accuracy' section in an entry which, after all, is about a movie and a piece of fiction. As history it is little better, if not worse, than The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire or Gladiator, to mention but two examples. Gibson's point of departure is best seen as Blind Harry's fifteenth century epic The Wallace, which is just as fictitious and fanciful as Braveheart. Rcpaterson 23:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not reading that much into it, but it is there in the sources, and at least should be remembered, esp. in the context of the raids and organized blackmail practiced by the Scottish resistors on the people of Lothian. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

lol, Best Makeup?

You got to love that blue. -G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.117.157.66 (talk) 01:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

"Longshanks would have to do the honors himself"

"In the beginning of the film, the narrator describes the marriage between King Edward II and the Princess by saying, "It was widely whispered that for the princess to conceive, Longshanks would have to do the honors himself." Although the marriage between Edward II and wife was not a good one, it produced four children." Edward II also fathered a number of illegitimate children.

I think whoever wrote this part is misinterpreting the message. Here,it is written as if the narrator meant to say that Edward II was impotent. I think its just an allusion to Edward II's homosexuality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ashmole (talk • contribs) 21:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

Not necessarily, but it does imply that EDward II did not have any children.--Jack Upland 23:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

we should stick to the substance of the movie, though. If we can find substantive arguments in the form of reviews, we can address that in an future Inaccuracies section. First the synopsis of the plot needs to get trimmed a bunch, then we can tighten up the language and deal with stuff outside the film. :) Arcayne 23:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Request a locking

Can anyone lock this article? I just fixed about three vandalisings in five minutes!--JesseOjala 12:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Locking it down now would prevent us from fixing the article. When you see vandalism, revert it, let the person know they cannot do that. If you see they have a lot of vandalism posts in their talk, report them to vandalism, so they can be dealt with on a more permanent basis, by blocking their IP address or breaking their kneecaps (okay, maybe not that last one). Arcayne 23:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

What Needs Work

I've rearranged the headers to something a bit more in keeping with articles on the WP:GA and WP:FA lists. Feel free to check out some exampoles, to get a feel for what we are all foing to be working towards. I've also rearranged the Discussion lists a bit, archiving discussions prior to December, 2006 (the posts before that were in June, 2006). Some duplication of topics is bound to occur, so it would be helpful to discuss big changes here before adding them to the article. If you think you are going to encounter resistance to the changes, try to find some concensus with the rest of the folk editing, so we can avoid a lot of the nonsense that seems to occur elsewhere. The way I see it, we need work in practically every area, but first and foremost, we need to tighten up and trim the plot significantly. As well, we need to find and add reviews of the film, perhaps developing the Production and the new Themes header. I am sure there is more, and I hope folk will pipe up and add your 2p. worth.Arcayne 19:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the list of inaccuracies should be in chronological order (as they appear in the film).--Jack Upland 23:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

That seems pretty reasonable. Also, I am thinking that if some of them are related inaccuracies, we can combine them. I forsee a time when we, rather than listing them, it is arranged in paragraph form.Arcayne 23:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Historical Inaccuracies

...of which there are many need to be cited. As it is, the section looks very much like a trivia section, which are not present in most FA articles. I am going to remove uncited instances of historical innacuracies to here. When they are properly cited, they should be included back into the article.Arcayne 19:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

(moved from the Article pending citation)

Innaccuracies

(re-added to article)

* Braveheart's plot includes an affair between William Wallace and the Princess Isabelle, based upon Isabella of France. The film implies she is pregnant at the time of Wallace's execution, carrying the future Edward III of England. Historically, the real Isabella was a child of nine still living in France at this time, meaning she never met Wallace, and furthermore, was never a Princess of Wales, as she married Edward II after he became king - four years after Wallace's death. This idea may have been derived from the play The Wallace by Sydney Goodsir Smith, or it may be derived from a fictional episode in Blind Harry's poem, where Marguerite of France, second wife of Edward I, attempts to seduce Wallace.

# The Battle of Stirling Bridge, the first skirmish in the film, was filmed without a bridge. Far from being an ambush, the English army was well aware of the location opf the Scottish army, in fact they were activley seeking battle with the Scots - which is why they were at Stirling in the first place.>

# The film depicts Edward I dying at the same time as Wallace was executed. In fact, Wallace's execution took place in 1305, in Westminster, and King Edward died in 1307, two years later, en route to put down another rising of the Scots, led by Robert the Bruce.

* Edward III of England was born in 1312, seven years after Wallace's death; thus it is impossible for Edward III to have been Wallace's son.

# The opening juxtaposition of the line "The King of Scotland had died without a son" and the caption "Scotland, 1280" is inaccurate: Alexander III did not die until 1286, and the country was not immediately taken over.

(Remaining to be confirmed through citation)

1. The English soldiers before and at Stirling are seen to be wearing the red-and-gold livery of the king of England; in reality troops did not yet wear 'national' colours, not, in general, the 'liveries' of great lords. It is not the case that they were 'Surrey's' troops, he was their commander.
2. (It is rumoured that Gibson told a Scottish local the bridge was removed as it got in the way, and the local replied "that's what the English found" [1].) The fight shown in the film is not remotely like the Battle of Bannockburn or any other Scoto-English battle of the middle ages.
3. The film also makes no mention of Andrew de Moray, Wallace's companion-in-arms and a major contributor at this battle, although it mentions a nobleman named "Mornay" who betrays Wallace at Falkirk and is later killed by him. If this was supposed to be Andrew de Moray it is in error - Moray died of wounds after the Battle of Stirling Bridge.)
4. Edward I's second wife, Margaret, whom he married in 1299, is absent from the film, although the span of history covered in the production includes this year. This implies his first wife Eleanor of Castile was his only spouse.

1. There is absolutely no controversy among medieval historians about whether the jus prima noctis (also known as the droit de seigneur), the supposed right of a Lord to deflower virgins in his territory ever existed, but it certainly never existed in either England or Scotland at that time. It is most likely a fabrication of the "Enlightenment" period or of Victorian romance.
2. The evidence is strongly agiainst the possibility that Wallace had a wife. As a candidate for the priesthood (according to Bower and Blind Harry) he could not have been able to amrry. According to much later Scottish romances her name was Marion Braidfute.
3. The then-future King Robert the Bruce is described as "Earl of Bruce", but his title at the time was Earl of Carrick; Carrick was a Gaelic-speaking province in south-west Scotland, and Bruce (more accurately "de Brus") was Robert I's family name, of Norman origin.
4. Braveheart suggests Wallace supported the Bruce claim to the Scottish throne; however, Wallace supported the Balliol claim while Bruce was convinced of his grandfather's rightful succession.
5. Bruce did not betray Wallace at Falkirk. He did eventually switch sides but this was a few years later and as a result of a dispute with the Comyn family (not depicted in the film) who supported the Balliol claim to the throne (as had Wallace himself). The Scottish war effort collapsed a few years later because of the defeat of their French allies by the Flemish at the Battle of the Golden Spurs in 1302. Wallace was hunted down when the Scots were forced to surrender in 1305.
6. The film depicts Edward I defenestrating a friend and (implied) lover of Edward, the Prince of Wales. There is no record of Edward ever killing or harming his son's favorites, though one, Gaveston, was exiled twice.
7. At the end of the film it shows what is implied to be the beginning of the Battle of Bannockburn, but it also implies that Bruce only decided to fight the English at that stage, in fact he had already been fighting a perfectly convenmtional campaign for eight years.
8. prima nocte was not in actual practice
9. Blue facial war paint was not used by the Scots
   • The film shows Wallace as a man of average height but in reality he was acctually around 6"foot 2"inches, when in the 13th century the average height would have been around 5"foot 4-6"inches.

The ones with links to other wikipedia articles that corroborate them should be kept in though, like Edward III's birth, and similar ones --AW 19:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, so long as the sentences that the Wiki-links appear in don't make uncited claims. For example, one of the last numbered inaccuracies have a Wikilink for "York", but the remainder of the notation requires citation.Arcayne 19:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll add some back if you want to check shortly --AW 20:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You understand what I mean about citing the material, right? I've noted you've added the points I removed from the article, and ported over here until it could be cited. Check out WP:CITE. What we need to have is verified references for the things like the Battle of Stirling. Check out some of the Featured film articles WP:FA#media, and see how they handle inaccuracies and the like. I am not trying to talk down to you (and if it is coming across like that, I am sorry). I am going to remove those inaccuracies without proper citation. After we cite it, we can put it back into the article.Arcayne 04:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Some of the stuff is obvious though, like "Edward III of England was born in 1312, seven years after Wallace's death; thus it is impossible for Edward III to have been Wallace's son." If you go to the page for Edward III, it says he was born in 1312. Wallace died in 1305, thus to me this one is fine --AW 23:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a problem with the phrasing (stating that something is "impossible" is seen as OR - even if it is patently so), but many of the other inaccuracies need confirmation, citable through an outside source.Arcayne 05:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we can also add most of 1 (except the "curiously..." sentence) 4, and 10, since those also deal with dates --AW 06:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. However, I am looking over the list, and I think that using bulletpoints as opposed to numbering would be smoother, I think. Go ahead and add 1,4 and 10 in, and we can tweak the language to make it more neutral.Arcayne 09:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Will do --AW 16:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Historical Accuracies

I have removed the Historical Accuracy section to here for two reasons. First, there is well-written information here. I am not simply going to revert/purge it. Secondly, good writing aside, this looks like almost entirely Original Research (WP:OR). Our own opinions do exist, but it is our job as contributors as editors to not inject ourselves into the article. Every fact - every single fact - needs to be cited and referenced. The only thing that is different from this entire process is the writing of the Lead paragraph(s) and the observatinal writing of the story in the Plot Synopsis. Everything else must be cited. If we can cite the information posted below, the it can go back in. If not, it cannot remain in the article. If someone wants to talk about this, I'm all ears (except for the next few hrs, as I will be off running for a few hours).

Historical Accuracy

Braveheart draws inspiration from real historical events as related by the myth poem The Acts and Deeds of Sir William Wallace, Knight of Elderslie by Blind Harry. However, due to the intense level of detail in costuming, makeup, and special effects, audiences may incorrectly assume that the production is intended to be historically accurate. Some of the "inaccuracies" in Braveheart may have been motivated by artistic reasons. The anachronistic kilts worn by the Scots make the rebels more visually distinctive, the incomplete armor and missing helmets allow viewers to recognize the actors, and changes to characters and names make the story easier to follow. Modifications to the sequence of events create dramatic juxtapositions, allowing different lines in the story to appear to occur simultaneously. Gibson, in his DVD commentary to the film, admits many of these historical inaccuracies quite candidly, such as:

However, for a film of its kind, Braveheart is still unspeakably inaccurate. The English did not, so far as history knows, kill Wallace's wife - as a candidate for the priesthood he not have one, He, along with many others, did lead a rising against them, but he was not captured and executed until more that a year afer the collapse of that rising. . The most inaccurate element of the movie is the chronology. Longshanks outlived William Wallace by a few years. The princess of Wales was actually born several years before Wallace's death, so the love story between the two never occured. However, her dislike of Edward II was accurate, and she eventually removed him from the throne in an attempt to sieze power with her lover. The portrayal of Edward I "Lonkshanks" is controversial. There is no question that from a Scot's perspective, as well as that of the Irish, Longshanks was a tyrant and a villain, a feeling that is certainly justified. He did manage take over Scotland betweeen February 1304 and March 1306, and was sometimes brutal in the treatment of the natives. It must be remembered that, despite today's United Kingdom, in medieval times, Scotland and England were two entirely separate nations, so Longshanks had absolutely no right to rule Scotland. Whether he was as overall a depraved person as the film portrays him is debatable.

By far the most important debate over Braveheart's accuracy is about the role of Robert the Bruce VII. Wallace was actually a supporter of John Balliol, and they state in the movie that the Wallace family were traditional supporters of Balliol. During Wallace's lifetime in the movie, his relationship with the Bruce is quite conflicted, as it would have probably really been. Nonetheless, it is well known that Robert the Bruce led the Scots to their freedom at the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314, and it is quite possible that he would have been inspired by the rebellion of Wallace, and would have probably had many of the same warriors that Wallace had fought with. The deeds of the Irish in the movie are totally invented, possibly motivated by the modern day romantic notions of Celtic unity. In 1316, Robert the Bruce invaded Ireland, a move much welcomed by the Irish in the north, who were at that time under English control, and this was seen by both the Irish and Bruce himself as an attempt to free Ireland. This was successful to a certain extent, though he had little support in the south of Ireland, despite his Northern popularity.

Arcayne 19:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

What still needs work

Most of the sections are pretty bloated, with little in the way of citation (WP:CITE, WP:ATT). Specifically, the Plot Synopsis is too long by far, and the Wallace Monument section, while noteworthy, is in danger of being removed by an editor for not having any citations. What do you folks think also needs work?Arcayne 00:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've trimmed down the plot synopsis some, but it hovers at about 1500 words (it needs to be at 900 words or less). Arcayne 14:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Wallace's height

The article gives his height as 6'2" but I wonder if this actually known or what. 70.54.126.197 22:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I keep going over that part in the inaccuracies section, and I keep wanting to remove it as inconsequential. I truly don't think it matters, even if Wallace was a big man. The film doesn't focsu upon that, but rather the path he cut for the Scots. Arcayne 22:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Plot summary

Is the plot summary of 13 paragraphs (a) too short (b) too long (c) just right? Bigturtle 02:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, look at the word count. We should be aiming for around 900 words. We are at close to 1500. Look at paragraphs like Acts in a play, or scenes requiring major scenery change. lol. Kidding aside, it could stand to have a lot more trimmed down, paraphrasing and condensing material. Remember that the is a Wikiquote area for those nifty bits of dialogue, so don't be afraid to bump them in order to provide a bir'd eye view of what happens. Arcayne 00:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Humane Rights Controversy

The "Battle of Stirling" scene, where many horses of the English Heavy Cavalry were impaled on a wall of improvised wooden spears, had sparked minor concerns of animal cruelty.

True or False? --Arima 03:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Needless to say, no animals were harmed in the making of this movie, or else it would be illegal. Other than that, Animal protestors protest at the use of animals in films, so naturally any film with animals would spark such protests.

Tourskin 22:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It was a concern. I am working on the production section, where that is included. Fromt he Braveheart DVD commentary, Gobson talked about how some animal rights person was so convinced that the scenes witht he horses were so real that he had to be shown a videotape of the production being made for a Make-a-Wish child that showed that the horses weren't being hurt at all. I should be finished with the production section this Sunday. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Pre monacta

I'm not sure thats how its spelled, but what about the Pre monacta stuff Longshanks talks about - you know, stealing a married man's wife on their first night. Tourskin 22:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Its actually called Prima noctae and, while it was a pactice, there isn't really that muchin the way of evidence that it was still in practice during Wallace's time. It may have been fudged historically in. Check out the link, which explains more about it. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced Info

We cannot include information which is not cited through a reliable source. There are lots and lots of articles about this film out there. Please find citations for any statements added to the article.Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers

I agree with David and Phil on this. We don't need these ugly little warnings because this isn't a fan site, it's an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 00:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You are allowed to disagree. However, there is no governing policy in effect regarding this subject. Until there is, perhapos using the articles as a grass roots campaign to accomplish a fait accompli can be construed as WP:POINT. Change the policy, then change the article. That's my understanding of how it's usually done. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm changing the policy by changing the way I edit. This is the way we do things on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 00:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess maintaining the current policy is the way I edit. It's also how we do things in WP. Perhaps you can fight this particular battle in the appropriate venue until then. :) Cheers. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no battle here. Policy is not fixed and immutable. It changes. --Tony Sidaway 05:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. When it does in fact change, let's chat then. Until then, I would appreciate it if you would stop altering my sig. It isn't too long, and I am fully aware of your reasoning that you've used in the past to defend this peculiar abberent behavior. It doesn't apply here. Please stop; you may be quite unaware (though I cannot see how) how annoying this is to your feelow users. Perhaps you might want to consider that it is rather uncivil to mess with another person's edits, Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You're too late. Wikipedia policy changed while you were worrying about the size and beauty of your luxuriant and voluptuous signature. --Tony Sidaway 18:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could tell us where this occurred, Mister Snippy.Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

All over the wiki. How many of you are there in there, Arcayne? Or is it the royal plural? --Tony Sidaway 20:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't be snippy. Perhaps you could point out a cited policy change, sir. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy isn't prescribed, it merely describes. --Tony Sidaway 01:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

So, I guess that means you don't have a policy to cite, and are instead elevating your personal opinion as policy. Thanks for the clarity, Tom. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Novel??

When was there a novel of Braveheart? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.121.27 (talk • contribs) 15:48, May 21, 2007

Ireland?

I don't recall Argyle taking young William to Ireland, as indicated ina recetn edit. It is presumed they left the area, and Wallace talks later of having knowledge of French and having been to Rome. No mention of Ireland, though. Can someone get back to me on that? I am going to edit it out for now, but I will gladly change it back if someone can cite the statement. Arcayne 16:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I just watched it yesterday and I would have to agree with you. It seems to me that we are told he left the British Isles. During one of their first meetings as adults, Wallace answers the question about being Rome with the statement, "Aye, my uncle took me on a pilgrimage". So, I would take that to mean that he did some extensive traveling. He might've visited Ireland as a part of that pilgrimage but it would've only been a visit. ---> Benseac 22:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Since it isn't mentioned in the film, out it goes. Thanks or the confirmation. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review

I think we that the article is shaping up pretty nicely (and might I say WOW on all the most excellent edits!). I think the article is ready for a Peer Review. they will give us some insight on maybe upgrading the aticle to A Quality, and maybe see if we cannot get yourselves a Good Article rating. If not, then we will at least know what we need to work on still. Arcayne 17:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The peer review has received comments from an editor here. Changes occurring are being made on the basis of that review. Arcayne 18:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

To Do List

• Rewrite Production into useful prose and support with citation. Origin of the project would be good as well, like why Gibson chose to pursue this particular time in history. Move Wikiquote template to External links section.

• Rewrite Response and awards section as prose. Also, are there any other notable awards that Braveheart won? Check out the Awards section on the film's IMDb page. Stuff like Golden Globes could be added; a possible rule of thumb is that if an award has its own Wikipedia article, it may be acceptable. Other criteria should apply, though. As for box office performance, more detail could be provided -- its premiere, anything unique about its opening, how it performed overseas, especially in the countries that are portrayed in the films.

• Cultural effects section needs to be cited. There's an embedded link for what Lin Anderson said about the film shaping the political landscape; does the link have any information about how it was shaped?

• Historical inaccuracy -- give it the 300 treatment and avoid synthesis. Find references of historians criticizing Braveheart directly.

• Spoofs and references... equates Trivia, in my opinion. Might be better replaced by useful prose about the impact of Braveheart on certain aspects of popular culture.

• Soundtrack and More Music from Braveheart -- I'd suggest a content fork, and if the music was a major part of the film, you could be redundant in having information about the music both at the film article and the newly-created soundtrack article, but only have the track listing at the latter.

• External links -- there's two film reviews. I suggest making "Critical reaction" and "Historical inaccuracy" subsections under "Response and awards" (re-title the section as "Reaction" or "Reception"). Focus "Critical reaction" on the merits of directing, acting, editing, effects, violence, etc. Focus "Historical inaccuracy" on differences from the actual events, but keep it succinct. Not sure how far this film strays from the actual event compared to 300.

• Expand lead paragraphs after all above points have been addressed.

-Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

-Add a section for critical reviews, and list the Wallace monument as a subsection of the Cultural Effects.

-would recommend addressing the description of the film's ending. The ultimate fates of Robert the Bruce and Wallace's army are left vague; there is voiceover by Mel Gibson stating that, 'They fought like warrior poets. They fought like Scotsmen. And won their freedom'. This can be interpreted literally, that the Scotish army won the fight and ultimately the war for their freedom (not supported by history); or, it can be interpreted that the Scotish were actually killed, having won their freedom by not submitting to the British, even at the cost of their lives (as William Wallace did earlier in the film).

References for use

1 - historian review of movie
2 - Edinburgh newspaper discussing the real Wallace
3 - film review
4 - about the historical accuracy of the film, with a nod to the idea that no one really cares
5 - historians and history
6 - 10 reviews, awards listings
7 - film reviews, a plethora of material
8 - cultural influences?
9 - JSTOR reference that might need sorting out first. It looks useful, though
10 - scads of reviews here as well as box office info

The fate at the end?

(the following was mis-posted tot he Peer Review. The poster is new to WP, and didn't understand the vagaries of where to post Discussion related material).

Address accuracy of the description of the film's finale. The actual fate of the Scottish army is not revealed; based upon Gibson's voiceover, it can be interpreted that the Scots won the battle and won their freedom, or that they were in fact killed, and remained free vecause they never surrendered. Either way, any interpretation should be left out, as a synopsis of the plot is not the right place for interpretation. A simple statement that the fate of the army is not seen on film, followed by a transcript of Gibson's voicover, would be more appropriate. (posted by User: 68.46.142.17)

• Sorry, that is not the job of the article. At all. It is a film article about a film. If, at the end, Gibson's (as Wallace) voiceover saying that the men charged the English at Bannockburn, fought like wattior poets, fought like Scotsmen, and won their freedom, that's pretty much telling it as it is. They won. If history tells a different story, there is a historical innacuracy section to quote someone else pointing out the historical defects of the film. Not in the synopsis,a nd certainly not here. As this is a content issue, it shoudl be more appropriately addressed in the Discussion area of the article, and not in a peer review. -Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I've got to agree with Arcayne here, the film makes it very clear that the scots win. Wrad 23:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• That's a misinterpretation of the voiceover. Nowhere does the film state that they won battle or defeated the British. The whole point of the film is that Gibson and the Scots never give in to the British. If they had surrendered at the end, they would have lost their freedom ... refusing to surrender is how they won it, not by winning the battle (similar to how Gibson's character refuses to claim Longshanks his king while he is being disembowled, instead shouting, 'Freedom!' ... he won his freedom as well). Either way, I'm not arguing to change anyone's mind; my point is only that there is more than one interpretation of the ending. A statement that the Scots' fates are not shown onscreen, with a transcription of Gibson's voiceover, would be an accurate description of the ending, and not a reflection of the author's opinion.

"The whole point of the film" sounds a little strong to me. Another important point in the film was how William's efforts gradually changed Edward the Bruce's attitude, eventually freeing the Scots from the English, which the voiceover clearly states. To state things in the way you want would be a major distraction to the summary of the plot. Whether it is a voiceover or not is of little consequence, the fact is, that is what the film expresses, that is the way the plot goes. Historically, as well, Edward the Bruce did win the eventual war, and freedom, heart, legal rights, and all. They didn't just never surrender, they won. Wrad 18:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• The historical accuracy of the entire film is very questionable. The purpose of an encyclopedic plot summary is to report what happened on the screen. The voiceover states that they fought well and won their freedom ... NOT that they won the battle or won the war. Stating that they did so is interpretation (as is stating that they did not), and shouldn't have a place in an encyclopedic plot summary.

I am sorry, but that is an OR asssertion as to "the whole point of the film". I appreciate your concerns, but - and this is worthy of emphasis - we don't accept primary opinion resources here. Here is the specific text of the voice-over (which is precisely how it appears in the novel by Randall Wallace):

"In the year of our Lord 1314, patriots of Scotland, starving and outnumbered, charged the fields of Bannockburn. They fought like warrior poets. They fought like Scotsmen. And won their freedom."

Now, perhaps I am being somewhat condescending in my next statements, but are you suggesting that:

• A) the film is historically accurate, and doesn't condense events? and
• B) that the intent of the method of the film's ending was not to imply that they did not defeat the English?

If you hold these rahter silly contentions, then perhaps you are imparting far too literal a historical view into a movie. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

But instead of belaboring the point back and forth, I created a new edit that reflects the intent of the film and addresses your concern. :) Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I won't continue to belabor the point after this, because it doesn't seem as if you've actually read my postings. To answer your two questions:

• A) I suggested nothing of the sort. In fact, I believe that I mentioned specifically that the historical accuracy of the film is questionable at best.
• B) Not to be condescending, but it's tough to fight through your double negative; I believe that you're asking my opinion as to what is intended by the ending. I don't think that's really important, because I agree completely that my opinion as to the ending has no place here or in a plot summary (and on reflection I shouldn't have argued that earlier). My point is simply that, nowhere in the film do they show you the results of that battle; nowhere do they state that the Scots won the battle or won the war. The voiceover at the end states only that they fought and 'won their freedom'. This can be interpreted literally, that they won their freedom on the battlefield, or figuratively, that they won their freedom by never bowing to the Brits. Prior to the final battle, they seemed to be on the verge of losing their freedom by setting up the Bruce as a puppet king. Your belief that it is to be taken literally is only your opinion (unless you've seen or read interviews with Gibson where he states that the Scots did win that battle), and that's what's being presented on the main page. I'm not suggesting that my belief should be on the main page either, only that their final fates are not shown on the screen, so that readers can draw their own conclusions.

It's interesting that you find my opinions silly because I'm taking the film too literally, when my whole argument is that the last line does not need to be taken literally.

Perhaps I was being a bit harsh. My apologies. I have altered the sentence so as to avoid the problem which you describe. Take a look and see if you can live with this. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Murron's pic

The picture of Murron is very dark. Can anyone fix this? Wrad 21:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I could, but the point of the addition of the picture is to ensure it was not a copyright infringement. It is a DVD capture, and the lighting was not very bright. I hesitate to digitally alter it and risk copyright infringement. As Murron is still quite visibile, I've left it as a necessary evil. Even though dark, it is far better than the picture that was ther before. the pic itself might be moved over to Production once I upload it. Gibson speaks about how he tended to film her in slower than normal time because she "looked good slow." I hope that answered your question. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I have the DVD. I wonder if I could capture a brighter picture. Wrad 03:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I placed another one at the right place in the article, the cast. It was deleted before by Arcayne, this one placed by him is terrible and is not linked with the writtings and must be removed. Machocarioca 04:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Machocarioca

Yeah, no, it doesn't need to be removed. First of all, your contention that the image is terrible and not linked to the wrtitings is actually rather incorrect, especially since you are simply replacing a darker image with one that is small, grainy and totally unsuitable. Secondly, you were doing a bit more than just replacing a dark image of Murron. You were rearranging the pics of the cast. Totally uncool without discussing it here first. That's how edit wars get started. I will upload a brighter image of Murron. If it gets pulled, I expect both you and Wrad to fight like hell to make sure it doesn't get cut as a copyright infringement. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

These images were at that place (cast) for months,long before you came here. Uncool was your move deleting it. Murron image you placed is ridiculous, I'm sorry, we can't see anything (is it a joke?) and totally out of line in the article. Machocarioca 05:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Machocarioca

Perhaps, you might stop edit-warring a little bit and give me a chance to upload a lighter version of the picture. Do you think you could wait just a bit, sweetheart? Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes I can baby, but do not revert it again. Upload a pretty one, brighter, cleaner and place it at the right place, Cast. I think these war-edits ridiculous too :-)Machocarioca 05:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Machocarioca

Finally. Now the new image is uploaded. As for the placement of these images, I am going to leave them where they are. However, I can tell you that their current placement makes them ripe for removal as "decorative". I've seen it happen in at least two other film articles. You folks might want to take a bit o' time and read up on Wiki-films project page. Keep in mind, Macho, you broke 3RR with your little edit-war. I'm going to cut you a break and not report you, because I'm in a good mood. You can say thank you. Now, play nice, from now on, please. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No my friend , see the history, YOU broke 3RR first. But I'm im good mood too and you can say thanks to me. :-) Well, I think this new image awful too, but nevermind. The current place is perfect, not the older one where you've placed that unseen image before. Cheers. MachocariocaMachocarioca

Heh. I guess we can both push back from the table then. Play nice, don't be prickly, and we will get along swimmingly. And do check out the Wikifilm thing I pointed out to you before. You might find enlightenment regarding what I was referring to there. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine, thanks Machocarioca 05:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Machocarioca

Clean-up, questions

Since there seems to be some warring going on, I thought it best to only do a few minor edits (whitespace, etc) and bring my concerns with the article as a whole to the discussion page. First and foremost, there are many statements that require references, including several that are in the cast section. "The 10-year old actor reportedly spent weeks trying to copy Gibson's mannerisms for the film" and "Her name was changed from Marion Braidfute in the script so as to not be confused with the Maid Marian of Robin Hood note," notably. Speaking of the cast section, I'm confused as to why the actor and character descriptions/items of note are mixed in such a way. The two statements I quoted above can be moved to the Production section, for example, and that way the Cast section will better first a Characters section, since that is what it mostly pertains to. On a similar note, I find it odd not to mention more about the characters' origins, since nationality plays such a large part in the movie's major themes; nowhere is it mentioned, specifically, that Wallace is Scottish -- only that he grew up outside of Scotland and that he led the Scottish rebellion. Everyone should know and infer that the man and a majority of his followers are Scottish, but it's never clarified. The Princess is French, oui? Her arranged marriage was unhappy, but many circumstances of the film's plot is left unsaid. I recognize that the movie is long, but the part about Isabelle's allegiance and love for Wallace rather than the English crown and the suggestion that she bears his lovechild and such is certainly of note.

I hope this helps direct the editing away from the images and more towards the content, which is in dire need. It's a great movie, and a great story, so it should definitely be done justice. I'll watch the article for a bit to see if there's anything I can do to help. María (habla conmigo) 12:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the matter with the images has largely been resolved. The other editor and I just pushed each other's buttons, and now we are apparently happy as clams now. I have been meaning to knock out the Production section for a while. As is usual, Life intervened. I will make sure something solid is up this weekend for everyone's perusal and tweaking. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Plot

Firstly, the trial and execution section needs altered because it implies that Wallace was guilty. In the film the point is clearly made that the trial is a sham and that Wallace is innocent. Wallace's argument (as in real life) was that he could not possibly be guilty of treason as he never once paid homage or made an oath of allegiance to the English monarch. Without wanting to labour the point, would you consider George Washinton or Mahatma Gandhi to be treasonous in their actions? Secondly, the English army shown at Bannockburn is clearly not a 'ceremonial line', it's the full army. And the Scots didn't 'eventually' win their freedom, they won it back. I've made the necessary changes, cheers. Golfer45 22:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You are operating from a number of OR misconceptions. The MOVIE doesn't say the things you want it to say. But lets look at the edits one by one which you are not discussing here beforehand:

• firstly, Robert the Bruce is more appropriately wikilinked in the Cast section, not in the plot.

• secondly, the term is 'unbeknownst', not 'unbeknown'.

• thirdly, in the film, Wallace doesn't argue the matter, save to say that he never swore fealty to Edward I. Your arguments comparing Ghandi and Washington to Wallace are immaterial, and not on point. As a matter of fact, Wallace was guilty of treason by prevailing law, and invading York was in itself a treasonous act against the English crown. If you truly think that Wallace argued the point before the English high court, please cite a reference that states such. It isn't present in the movie save for one line, and that is not enough to contravert the pre-existing edit:

"Wallace refuses to admit his guilt and is brutally tortured to death in a London square, being alternately hanged, racked and finally eviscerated alive. Despite the agony, he refuses to declare his guilt, cry for mercy, or even cry out in pain"

• fourthly, in the film the English forces arrayed at Bannockburn are in fact ceremonial, in that they are not expecting a fight. This is noted by the commander's snide commentary and the general dressiness of the forces arrayed (in comparison to those of the Bruce).

• lastly, it has been pointed out that this battle was not the final one of Scottish independence, and was in fact only one of the last. In the film, the Anglish are in fact surprised when the Scots charge the lines.

I would ask that if you have significant issues with this edit that you bring them here in the future. Discussion via edit summary is both uncool and unsatisfactory where it concerns content dispute resolution. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne, do you even understand the difference between 'English', 'British' and 'Scottish'? I suspect this is where a lot of your confusion is stemming from. Kanaye 12:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC) EDIT: Just to make it clear, I'm the same user as Golfer45 and am not attempting to use a sock to influence the discussion. Kanaye 12:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate you clarifying the identity issue, KanGolf. And yes, I do understand the differences. What I guess I am not getting is why you chose to ask if I knew them. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned it because in your previous comments you were talking about the "British forces" and "the Brits". Since there was no state called Britain until the 18th century, it seems unlikely that "the Brits" would be making an appearance in a film about the 13th and 14th centuries! I think this misunderstanding around the different terms would also explain the confusion in other areas, such as the trial scene. You may find the following articles illuminating:

• Scottish people
• English people
• British people
• William Wallace
• Robert I of Scotland
• First War of Scottish Independence
• Kingdom of Scotland
• Kingdom of England
• Acts of Union 1707

Kindly, KanGolf 17:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I understood the difference; you will note that the use of those terms was here in Discussion, and not in the article. As well, I appreciate you taking hte time to supply me all the wikilinks. While they are useful for an overview of the Wars for Scottish Indepe4ndence and are of unique historical interest, we do not have commentary regarding their connection to the film. Please see WP:ATT. That link tells us that we (as primary sources) don't get to decide what is accurate or not about the film. Only those secondary sources from reviewers or reliable commentators are to be included in the article. We are merely noting the plot as it occurred in the film. Nothing else can be included in the Plot Summary. You might want to direct your efforts into researching one the many, many external links I provided for the editors in the article to point out, in prose fashion, the specific deficiencies of the film's historical accuracy. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, allow me to reiterate how things tned to work more smoothly, Kanaye (or Golf45); when an edit is shown to be in contention, it is best to take discuss the matter on the article's discussion page. Until it is resolved, the article is left in its pre-existing condition. What this means is that you don't post commentary that doesn't address your edits and then go and revert them back at your whim. This creates a deleterious editing environment. As you have spent most of your two years in Wikipedia editing football teams and the like, perhaps that sort of issue hasn't really come up before. In a wiki-film article, it is vital that editors be able to work together effectively. I hope that you inderstand that this is an attempt to help appraise you of how certain things work here in Wikipedia, and not as a chastisement. (Arcayne)

Removed Bits

Bits that were removed:

• Braveheart's plot includes an affair between William Wallace and the Princess Isabelle, based upon Isabella of France. The film implies she is pregnant at the time of Wallace's execution, carrying the future Edward III of England. Historically, the real Isabella was a child of nine still living in France at this time, meaning she never met Wallace, and furthermore, was never a Princess of Wales, as she married Edward II after he became king - three years after Wallace's death. This idea may have been derived from the play The Wallace by Sydney Goodsir Smith, or it may be derived from a fictional episode in Blind Harry's poem, where Marguerite of France, second wife of Edward I, attempts to seduce Wallace.
• The Battle of Stirling Bridge, the first skirmish in the film, was filmed without a bridge. The actual conflict was more of an ambush of the English as they attempted to cross the River Forth.
• The opening juxtaposition of the line "The King of Scotland had died without a son" and the caption "Scotland, 1280 A.D." is inaccurate: Alexander III did not die until 1286, and the country was not immediately taken over.
• The opening narration continues "and the King of England... claimed the throne of Scotland for himself". Edward I never claimed the kingship of Scotland: he claimed lordship over it, but after the deposition of John Balliol in 1296 did not recognize its status as a kingdom.
• Edward III was born in 1312, seven years after Wallace's death; thus it is impossible for Edward III to have been Wallace's son.
• The film depicts Edward I dying at the same time as Wallace was executed. In fact, Wallace's execution took place in 1305 in Westminster or Smithfield, and King Edward died in 1307, two years later, en route to put down a fresh rebellion of the Scots led by Robert the Bruce.
• The film depicts Scots going into battle wearing woad, an ancient Pictish practice not thought to have still existed in the thirteenth century. However, in Blind Harry's poem, Wallace does dream that the Virgin Mary paints a saltire on his face, and this is the likely inspiration for the anachronistic use of warpaint in the film.
• The 16th Cent Highland Kilts are just wrong for the 13-14th Cent.
• The film opens with the Wallaces seeing the hanged bodies of the thirty Scottish noblemen and their pages who went there thinking they were there for a meeting with Edward's men. While Longshanks was capable of such a deed, (see the Battle of Evesham) in 1280, when this was supposed to have happened, he was busy with putting down revolts in Wales and dealing with their leader Llywelyn ap Gruffydd. In fact many Scottish nobles, who actually held lands in both Scotland and England, were serving in Edward's army at the time. This included the Bruces.
• A Welsh rebel who had been captured by the Scots in Edward's service reportedly told his captors, "When Longshanks is done with us he'll turn on you."