Braveheart: Hollywood vs. History

William Wallace

Movies have a profound impact on travel by inspiring audiences to explore the real-world locations featured on screen—a phenomenon known as "film tourism" or "set-jetting." Today, we will delve into one of my favorite movies for this genre: Braveheart! We’ll take a look at its effect on the people of Scotland, the impact it had on Scottish tourism and most importantly, its relationship with the truth. That’s a lot to unpack I know, so let’s get started!

Like most of the world, in 1995, I watched the film Braveheart. You know, the one directed by and starring Mel Gibson? Yeah, that one. And, like most folks, I really enjoyed it.

Scottish Pride

The movie itself did a great job at renewing a sense of ‘Scottishness’ in every corner of the land of Nessie, but it also brought forth those feelings in every Aussie, Canuck and Yank that ever heard the tale about how a loved one’s flaming red hair was directly linked to an ancestor that was once the King of Scotland. (The red hair is more likely to come from the Viking invasions, but I digress.)

The movie also rekindled an old fire that had been simmering just below the surface for centuries: The Scottish hatred for the English! “At the time that it came out, it kinda sparked a lot of anti-English feelings.” Says Gordon Campbell who lives in the area surrounding Stirling Casle. “The Scots seemed to become ‘more’ Scottish! But after a while the ‘hatred’ seemed to calm down again.”

Surge in Tourism

Following the movie’s release, Scotland experienced a notable increase in tourism. This influx of ‘movie money’ contributed an estimated £7 million to £15 million in tourist revenue for the small country. Not bad that! “I think it helped with the tourism industry with a lot of American, Chinese and Japanese people visiting the country,” said Campbell.

Visitor numbers to the William Wallace Monument near Stirling Castle increased from approximately 80,000 annually before the film's release to nearly 200,000 in 1996 and have remained above 100,000 in subsequent years.

I was one of those visitors in 2001, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2018 and again in 2022. You’d think I’d get something after all that. Plus, I always brought at least one person with me. Maybe they can find a place for a wee statue thanking me for doing my bit for Scotland? It wouldn’t need to be anything grand like William’s monument up on the hill! Heavens no. Perhaps just a place down in the pet cemetery below Stirling Castle? No? Ok.

From Screen to Facts

Now, about this next bit, we’re going to take a quick look at some of the main points in the movie and compare those to the reality of the situation.

Spoiler Alert! Nah, no spoiler alert. It’s been thirty years now since the movie’s release. If you haven’t seen the movie by now, that’s on you!

Let’s just say, for all intents and purposes, Braveheart did succeed as a grand tale of freedom and perseverance, buuuuut it really shouldn’t be taken as a factual recounting of history. To his credit though, Gibson never touted the movie as being historically accurate, so there ya go.Here’s what I’m talking about:

Wallace’s Background

Contrary to the movie’s depiction of Wallace as a commoner, he was actually born into the lesser Scottish nobility and held the title "Sir William Wallace" well before the events portrayed in the movie took place. It was not given to him posthumously because of his bravery. He was also well-educated, which contributed to his leadership capabilities, they didn’t just come naturally.

Attire and Appearance

The iconic blue face paint and kilts worn by Wallace and his men in the film are not correct at all. Blue woad body paint was used by ancient tribes over a millennium earlier, but not during Wallace’s time. In addition, the tradition of wearing kilts didn't become common until the 16th century, well after Wallace was hanged, drawn, and quartered.

During Wallace’s era he more than likely would have worn a yellow tunic dyed with saffron and horse pee which was belted at the waist. The cloaks and large pieces of fabric in the movie were correct, but the Great Kilt with pleats depicted in the movie didn’t come along til much later. Soooo yeah.

Battle of Stirling BRIDGE

This is the one that really chaps my…..well you know! The movie completely omits the actual bridge from the Battle of Stirling Bridge, which, I’m sorry, is completely central to the entire battle’s strategy! I mean it’s right there in the bloody name: The Battle of Stirling BRIDGE! It wasn’t called the Battle of the Open Field Combat!

Stirling Bridge

Ugh, I’m guessing they didn’t want the bother of the horses being on a bridge, maybe? But then there were scenes where the horses were going rumps over tea kettle! So, to quote Ozzy Osbourne, “I don’t know!”

What I do know is, here’s how it really happened:

By the summer of 1297, Wallace had gained control over much of northern Scotland. In response to that, King Edward I dispatched a rather large English force to suppress the rebellion. The town of Stirling, located on the River Forth, was of strategic importance as it provided the only safe crossing into northern Scotland via a narrow wooden bridge. The bridge allowed for only two horsemen side by side to cross at a time. So crossing was slow, but it was still the easiest and safest place to cross, or so they thought!

The Scottish army led by Wallace, hid itself on the northern bank of the river, while the English forces assembled to the south, using Stirling Castle as a base. As the English began to cross the bridge, the Scots waited until a significant portion of the soldiers had made it across and were isolated on the northern side. The Scots then launched a wicked attack, taking advantage of the horses bottlenecking at the end of the bridge and significantly limiting the maneuverability of the English forces.

The result was the English army suffering a devastating defeat, with heavy casualties, including the death of Hugh de Cressingham, the English treasurer sent to collect taxes for the king while the soldiers got the Scots ‘under control’. Side note, maybe Edward I should have read up on his Roman history a bit more. If he had, he would have known that Emperor Hadrian, back in the early 100’s, had also tried his best to get the Scots ‘under control’ and even with building his giant wall, he finally gave up and went home. Just saying.

Instead of depicting the scene accurately with a bridge, Gibson just has the two sides eyeing each other dramatically over an open field. Then the Scots start flashing their willies and buttocks at the English and they all start going at it. For the record, in reality, there is no evidence of Scottish warriors exposing themselves in battle until the seventeenth century.

Ironically, I did meet a really tall, inebriated guy from the Borders named William once who had a zipper malfunction on the ‘mean’ streets of Edinburgh, but it wasn’t quite the same. And when he asked me to be his date to his own wedding, things got even weirder, but that’s a tale for another day.

The movie also leaves out the juicy little detail about how Wallace had a wide strip of skin removed from the body of Hugh de Cressingham (treasurer) to make a belt for carrying his sword. This act was reportedly in retaliation for the treasurer’s harsh treatment of the Scottish people. Sounds fair, I guess? Now, is this left-out detail important to the plot of the movie? No. Is it an interesting tidbit to entertain my husband’s friends at parties? Yes!

It seems like Mel approached Scottish history for Braveheart much like someone skimming a few pages of a 1990s-era encyclopedia—selecting the most dramatic bits and rearranging them to suit the movie’s narrative. I will say though, the battle scene does produce a great line from my favorite character in the movie, the crazy Irishman, Stephen. "The Lord tells me he can get me out of this mess, but he's pretty sure you're f***ed." Stephen says while smiling at Wallace with a crazy madman look in his eyes. Classic Irish move!

Princess Isabella’s Portrayal

In the movie, Isabella of France is depicted as Wallace's lover and the mother of his child. Historically, we know that Isabella was born sometime between 1292 and 1295. William was known to be in France around 1299, so that certainly doesn’t line up. Isabella also married Edward II years after Wallace's death, making any romantic involvement quite problematic.

Robert the Bruce’s Depiction

For me personally, I didn’t care much about the historical legitimacy of this part. The actor that Gibson chose to play Robert the Bruce, Angus Macfadyen, had eyes that barely left me able to breathe let alone caring about historical accuracy!

I was able to comprehend in my fluster however, that the movie portrays Robert the Bruce as betraying Wallace, but historical records indicate that while Bruce's allegiances did shift during the wars, there's no evidence he actually betrayed Wallace at the Battle of Falkirk. Now to me, there was no need whatsoever to make Robert a bad guy. I think Gibson was just jealous of Angus’s eyes and knew he couldn’t match him, so he made fans turn on him! It’s a working theory.

To wrap things up, here’s one last little nugget for you before I go: The title "Braveheart" is more accurately referring to Robert the Bruce and not William Wallace as it was Bruce whose heart was carried into battle after his death, as per his wishes and is now buried in the cemetery at Melrose Abbey. Which is not to be confused with the heart of Richard I (the Lionheart) which is buried at the Church of Notre-Dame in Rouen, Normandy, France. How that guy got to be King of England without speaking a word of English is beyond me, but we’ll talk about him later.