Just watched Braveheart this weekend. Its a good flick, no doubt, but it could be so much better without the awful historical inaccuracies. For example, that atrocious mention of Prima Noce is an invention of Hollywood. As is the story of Robert Bruce taking the wrong side at the Battle of Falkirk, where Edward I defeated Wallace and the Scots. Bruce was nearby, but he was definately not helping the English. After the battle, he burned the town of Ayr in order to deny it to the English as they returned south.

What makes these inaccuracies so tragic is that there is more than enough truth to make the movie great. Much of the Bravehart story is true. William Wallace really was a hero of Scottish Independence. Despite his relatively low rank as the son of a knight, he led a fierce and determined struggle against the English, remaining unwilling to compromise even when Scotland's more powerful nobles were ready for peace. Edward I really was a son of a bitch to the Scots. In 1296, for example, he destoyed the Scottish town of Berwick. This is a contemporary report:

When the town had been taken in this way and its citizens had submitted, Edward spared no one, whatever the age or sex, and for two days streams of blood flowed from the bodies of the slain, for in his tyrannous rage he ordered 7,500 souls of both sexes to be massacred...So that mills could be turned round by the flow of their blood.

With acts like that, I have no idea why Hollywood decided it needed that stupid Prima Noce thing.

There is a lot of truth in the other characters, too, even if its not strictly accurate. Although Robert Bruce did not switch sides at Falkirk, he did, often, switch sides; for example Bruce supported Edward I's 1296 invasion of Scotland, the invasion that led to the massacre at Berwick. In addition, Edward II really was a dandy with an unusally intimate male companion named Piers Gaveston, and he really was later deposed by his Queen, Queen Isabella of France, in favor of their son, Edward III. Isabella also also really did take a lover, although it wasn't William Wallace, but a noble named Roger Mortimer.

Tragic really. Why not be dramatic and accurate?

I'm also not sure what this means for Mel Gibson's new movie about Jesus's life, Passion, but its likely not good.

Two quick asides. The first is a story about Wallace not depicted in the movie: during the Battle of Stirling, the Scots killed England's hated Treasurer, Hugh Cressingham. Wallace, not content to merely have him killed, made a sword belt out of his dead skin. More than a bit creepy, if you ask me.

Second, led by Robert Bruce, the Scots won their independence at the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314, almost 700 years ago. Yet, the Scots are still clinging to it. Every time they play the English in rugby, they sing The Flower of Scotland:

O Flower of Scotland
When will we see
Your like again,
That fought and died for
Your wee bit of hill and glen
And stood against him (‘gainst who?!)
Proud Edward's army,
And sent him homeward
Tae think again

Let it go, guys. If your last big win over the English was 700 years ago, maybe you shouldn't be drawing attention to it.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 1:31 PM