[imagesource:here]

When I want to check up on a historical fact, Hollywood is not my first port of call.

I’m pretty sure Marie Antoinette didn’t listen to indie rock music, the events outlined in Pearl Harbour were less than accurate, and 10 000 B.C., unless it was a fictional account of the miraculous return of ‘terror birds’ which went extinct roughly 40 million years ago, doesn’t hold much ground either.

Despite the obvious – Hollywood is more about entertainment than accuracy – historians still get upset when confronted with something that looks very different from their understanding of the past.

One film, in particular, seems to be a sore point for scholars of medieval history: Braveheart.

Over to The Telegraph:

As medieval historian and Braveheart detractor Sharon L. Krossa said: “The events aren’t accurate, the dates aren’t accurate, the characters aren’t accurate, the names aren’t accurate, the clothes aren’t accurate – in short, just about nothing is accurate.”

This is something that has clearly kept Sharon awake at night.

In case you need a refresher, here’s the trailer for the film:

The real William Wallace was very different from the William Wallace in the film.

[He] was from noble stock, the son of a landowner lord (“He was not a kilt-wearing peasant, that’s all nonsense,” says Dr Iain MacInnes, a senior history lecturer at the University of the Highlands ) and certainly wouldn’t have been surprised to find that his wife-to-be can’t read, as happens in the movie (“It’s the 13th Century and she’s living in a hut,” laughs historian Alex von Tunzelmann. “It’s quite normal not to read”).

In fact, one of the most commonly peddled facts about the film is that kilts weren’t around at all in those times.

Set in the late 13th Century, Braveheart follows the reimagined adventures of Wallace. Rightly furious that the English have murdered his wife, Wallace raises a tartan army to rebel against King Edward Longshanks (Patrick McGoohan). Wallace smashes the English at Stirling Bridge in a fight for, well, freedom and becomes Guardian of Scotland. But after a betrayal and loss at the Battle of Falkirk, Wallace is captured and hanged, drawn, and quartered for treason. One last shout of “Freedom!” would bag Braveheart an impressive five Oscars.

In the film, in the Battle of Stirling Bridge, the bridge was missing. Also, there is very little information about the real Wallace, and accounts of his deeds were only recorded years after he was killed.

Mel Gibson claimed that a ton of research had been done to ensure historical accuracy. The film does insert both a disclaimer and challenge to historians in the opening voiceover by Robert the Bruce (also portrayed inaccurately, if you care).

“Historians from England will say I am a liar, but history is written by those who have hanged heroes.”

Clearly, that challenge was accepted and passed down through the generations.

At the end of the day, does it matter?

The film is 25 years old.

Let it go.

[source:telegraph]