Back in the 70s and early 80s, historical journals and essays failed to include film as a possible medium to portray history. Even if a film were an accurate depiction of past events, it would not be recognized by any historian to be legitimate. However, nowadays almost all major journals publish reviews, analysis, and essays on film and is recognized as valid. Mel Gibson’s 1999 film Braveheart is a clear example of why historians never accepted film. Although it won 5 Oscars, the film has been classified as one of the worst medieval movies (by historical accuracy). From the introductory opening scenes, to the end credits, the film fails miserably to represent the life and times of William Wallace and makes up stories to better fit a Hollywood audience. In this essay, I will examine the historical facts of the 13th century war between Scotland and England, and the way it was portrayed in Braveheart.
Directed and starred by Mel Gibson, Braveheart was seen as a huge success. The film was about a man named William Wallace. Wallace was a commoner and landowner in 13th century Scotland. He led the Scottish rebellion against the English to get back the freedom and sovereignty Scotland deserved. He was knighted and titled “Guardian” of Scotland after a victory in the battle of Sterling Bridge. After losing the Battle of Falkirk, Wallace’s rebellion plummeted and he was later captured and executed for high treason by King Edward I. These are the very few facts the film actually illustrated correctly. The rest of the film was either fantasy, skewed facts, or simply made up for audience purposes.
In the very first shot of the film, we see these beautiful mountain sceneries, which were apparently shot in West Highlands, a place not even relatively close to the birthplace or the city that Wallace lived in. This area is very different from the rest of Scotland, and to a historian, the film starts off on a bad foot. This would be like using aerial shots of the Grand Canyon in Arizona as the opening scene of a movie about the American War of Independence. William Wallace was actually born in Elderslie in Renfrewshire, which did not have mountains like in the film. After the scenery shots, the title “Scotland – 1280” appears and the narrator (who we later find out is Robert the Brute) explains how the King of Scotland had died without a son to take the throne, and that the King of England had taken his spot, calling him “a cruel pagan”. However, in 1280, the King of Scotland (Alexander III) was not only not dead, but both of his two sons were also alive and well. The younger son, David, didn't die until 1281, the eldest son, Alexander, didn't die until 1284, and King Alexander himself did not die until two years after that. Even when King Alexander III did die in 1286, with no surviving sons, he left a granddaughter, Margaret, who was acknowledged as his heir by the Scottish nobles and even the King of England, who negotiated with Scotland to marry her to his son and heir. Rather than fighting each other over the crown, the Scots appointed guardians who ruled the realm in her name for four years, until she died in 1290 while on her way to Scotland. But even at this point, the nobles did not fall into civil war, and Edward I of England did not claim the throne of Scotland for himself. Instead, they held a court case to determine who was the rightful heir. While Edward did claim overlordship of Scotland, he did preside over the court case, and undoubtedly influenced the conclusion; the end result was to pick John Balliol as King of Scotland. Right from the start, the film has made it clear this is not historically accurate but rather a fantasy story in a fictional time.
Next, the film portrayed William Wallace as the son of a Malcom Wallace, a common man with a farm, who lived in a small village of farmers with his two sons: Malcolm and William. However, this was false because although his name was unknown, William’s father was no mere “farmer”. He was a knight who held lands. William Wallace also had at least two brothers, Malcolm and John. Malcolm was the eldest and although it is not clear when their father died, by 1296 Malcolm was a knight himself holding lands in Elderslie. So that's a minimum of three sons, not two, at least in 1296.
In Braveheart, Wallace was portrayed as a poor man who was secretly married right before he got in trouble with the English. Actually, he was a landed commoner with a good education, and in peaceful times he might have been a scholar. All landed men were required to sign the Ragman Roll, which bound signatories in loyalty to England's King Edward I. Those who refused, like Wallace, were outlawed. In response, Wallace and Andrew Moray organized other outlawed men into an army. Moray was killed at Stirling Bridge and mostly forgotten, and was not mentioned in the film. Wallace was involved in a romantic relationship, but he was unable to settle down due to spending his entire adult life at war or in hiding. He was with her when the English discovered his hiding place. When they discovered she had stalled them to give Wallace time to escape, she and the rest of the household were killed.

The first big battle of Scottish Independence was at the Stirling Bridge, where Wallace, along with the nobility, fought the Northern British army and won. In the film, the battle was on plain ground, however most of the actual battle happened on the bridge itself. Using military tactics, the Scottish had the English crash into each other on the bridge, which then collapsed due to the overwhelming weight caused my the soldiers. This gave them the advantage of terrain and helped them win back the Stirling Castle.
The second big battle was in Falkirk, during which Wallace was shown going into battle against the wishes of the other noble commanders. History books, however, indicate the opposite, that he opposed the fighting then, on the grounds that the fields did not offer the same advantages of Stirling Birdge. It was a neat scene when the Irish troops with the English switched sides as they were supposed to charge into battle, but that never really happened. Then the Scottish nobles decided to desert Wallace’s army, and ruined his plans, which also did not actually happen. The cavalry did withdraw, but for other reasons unknown, perhaps if they had not, they would have won the battle. Wallace did not hold a high title within the nobility; he was only knighted after the victory in Sterling, at which time he was made Guardian of Scotland, which gave him the power of a king. However, with no land, his leadership depended on the success in the battlefield. When he lost, he was replaced.
Other than these really important facts, the movie got a lot of little things wrong as well. There are two major wardrobe related errors in the film. In actuality, kilts did not become a popular form of men’s wear until well into the 17th century, which means that the film’s portrayal can be considered grossly inaccurate.If anything he would have been wearing similar clothes as his English enemies. It is said that he probably would have been wearing chainmail like any other warrior of that time, and not caveman outfits with face paint.
Although it might look more visually appealing to have face paint and little to no armor while killing an entire army, it is completely unrealistic, and simply done for added effect. The hairstyles were also unrealistic. There is no evidence that Scottish men/farmers had long braided hair. This was just Mel Gibson’s fantasy idea, which he thought was a good one. The selection of clothing and hair/make-up is further proof that this film is not historically accurate.