I think you're confusing women and firearms. Want to buy a "French" joke punchline? Only fired a million times and never dropped with very good timing.
Whether they realize it or not, people often think they know things because they saw it in movies. I had to explain twice to people that Prima Nocta never existed even though they were concinved it was because Braveheart told them so. And three times that the Russians at Stalingrad didn't have one rifle for every two men even though that's what it was in Enemy at the Gates. As pedantic as internet historians may sometimes be, it's never a bad thing to spread correct information.
It's more annoying when they treat a good movie as awful for historical inaccuracies, and a majority of people legit don't give a single shit and don't take it seriously. Those that do, well, that's their fault
The shortage of rifles may have not happened at Stalingrad, but it did happen in ww2. I knew a guy whose father fought for the Germans and his father said there were instance where their trenches were attacked by masses of Russian soldiers most of whom were not armed. He described German machine gunners weeping as they butchered unarmed Russians.
@@jonmce1 I'm sorry, but that sounds like complete bullshit. Russian generals did not see their troops as disposable. Rifles were still a lot cheaper to replace than soldiers were, especially given that they would still generally require training, and officers to lead them. Sending in soldiers before they're trained, to die in droves charging enemy guns is just complete nonsense. Poorly trained troops don't have anything like that much motivation to charge forwards until gunned down, even in situations when they're well armed. For the most part, only elite soldiers have that level of courage and motivation, but elite soldiers would obviously never be sent into a battle without weapons. If you want to send in poorly trained troops to try to wear down your enemy, making sure that all of them have a weapon and ammunition is a SMALL price to pay vs. the huge cost in morale which would result from trying to send half of them in un-armed.
Well just to be a little bit pedantic, it's not clear if the ius primae noctis really existed or not. there is some limited historical evidence speaking for it but too little to really be certain and unclear if it was only propaganda to discredit other cultures or not. It's pretty safe to say it didnt exist in scotland when the movie took place though.
@@syncmonism the crying part does sound like bullshit, but at the beginning of Operation Barbarossa, the Soviet generals moved troops and tanks, and not enough supplies to equip the ones currently in the field. A large part of why the soviet tank forces did so poorly at the being was due to the fact that soviet generals moved the tanks first and then the food, fuel, ammunition, and whatever else the tankers needed. the situation eventually unfucked itself by the time the spring of 42 rolled around, and logistics became a priority again
I've said it before and I'll say it again; Braveheart is a good film, but bad history. If it were a fantasy film it would be among the greats, but they set it in the Scottish War of Independence and so it tacitly laid claim to accuracy, and so it gained an obligation *to* accuracy, which it failed to provide. EDIT: I Should clarify; I actually fucking love this film. I just know for a fact it's shit history and treat it as historical fantasy. I mean James Horner's soundtrack alone can do no wrong.
That's all well and good until the film is used in Scottish Nationalist rhetoric (with quotes from the film being used by MSP's in the Scottish Parliament)
@@owenhay7154 Tory Ruth Davidson (before she tanked) used quotes from effing Churchill! I do agree with you, however - but once something becomes the "zeitgeist" a certain amount of that sort of thing becomes inevitable ...as of course is Scottish independence.
*I wish more people recognized Braveheart as still a good movie, even though not a good history one. Outlaw King is more accurate but relatively boring and less inspiring and less memorable than Braveheart. Braveheart makes you feel. Makes you remember.*
See this is the thing. It isn't the historical accuracy that gets me - and I love other films like Apocalypto despite their many inaccuracies. But as a Scot, seeing other Scots taking the William Wallace from this film, or the stereotype shown by this film, and using it as propaganda for Scottish independence just irks me. If you're gonna base your desire for independence in something, make sure it's at least accurate! Politicised historical inaccuracy is the problem. Edit: And the omission of Andrew Moray as co-commander at the Battle of Stirling Bridge annoys me as an inhabitant of the area of Moray!
They might as well have it as an ahistorical fiction like say Master and Commander, than William Wallace as the main character why not another person and remove the semi historical story all together and make it someone elses story.
I'm at 4:05 where you talk about battles and I must add that battles DID NOT look like this. On the contrary, they were fought in an orderly fashion where two armies met each other in tight formations, sometimes even disengaged to carry the wounded away from the front and then re-engaged again. Only the first two or three lines of men were fighting at the same time, while keeping the formation. In this way, battles weren't as chaotic as we often see in movies, or at least definitely not in a sense where people blindly charged at each other with no regards to their own survival. What was actually chaotic was that you, as a soldier, had no idea what was going on elsewhere on the battlefield because of the limited means of communication. Your squad could even be winning the melee on your own side only to find out few moments later that the main bulk of your army had been routed 30 minutes earlier and now you're surrounded. I believe this trend of depicting historical battles like metal mosh-pits is coming to its end, as more and more people are becoming educated of how things truly were.
I can never not be mad that the Braveheart presented battle of Sterling lacks a bridge. Had it been the battle of open field the English would have won as they continued to in most open fields for 600 plus years.
When asked by a local why the Battle of Stirling Bridge was filmed on an open plain, Gibson answered that "the bridge got in the way". "Aye," the local answered. "That's what the English found."
Fun fact, Edward II's lovers weren't wimpy caricatures at all. One of them, Hugh DeSpenser had actually been a pirate before arriving at the English court. From what I've read, the English nobility didn't so much have a problem with him being gay, the issue was him promoting and rewarding guys he thought were hot - at the expense of older families.
It's also debated whether he was even gay; one biography argues he just liked to lionise "big brother" types, like Piers Gaveston, who were maybe giving him an encouragement and sense of belonging his father signally failed to provide. It seems possible the whole gay thing was simply made up by political rivals - even the way he supposedly met his death has been claimed to be a fiction, which did not first surface until many decades after his death. I think getting at the truth is very problematic after 700 years.
He wasn't a pirate before arriving at the English court. He was already a chamberlain and Edward's favourite, got exiled, was supposed to leave England, but didn't do that and instead became a pirate! The guy obviously rocked, no wonder Edward loved him so much.
Regarding Andrew de Moray, I think you can argue Braveheart's Wallace is a composite of both of them. Moray was a Gaelic-speaking Highlander who brought the Highlands into the Scottish coalition, and Wallace in the film is shown as a Highlander (rather than the much more English-adjacent Lowlander he actually was).
I disagree that it being historically inaccurate isn't a problem. I remember this got shown in my history class at secondary school and I was very vocal in pointing out the inaccuracies because it seemed like it was shown just because the teacher had given up. There was no follow up or cross-examining the film, just "as we're learning about the period, here you go." which is disingenuous and terrible teaching. I for one get History Buffs's anger because I had to listen to the kids in my class later regurgitate what they had seen as fact. It still makes me cringe. And yeah, I enjoyed the film, but to excuse it without context is just ridiculous. I just equate it to Patriot 2, This Time it's Personal.
actually it is .... a problem , it screams Hollywood , I love Braveheart as a film but , the fact is it is disrespecting the history of William Wallace and Scotland as a country
Braveheart was released just before I started getting into medieval re-enactment. It shaped my early adulthood and have so many conflicting feelings about the film which have evolved and changed over the years since. This video did a good job of separating out the different elements and discussing their different strengths. I'm really glad I found this channel
I loved Braveheart but take none of the history seriously. Oddly, most of my Scottish friends, even the SNP supporters, hate Braveheart with a passion.
@@makadozter garbage. If you want xenophobia, I direct you to the parts of England which voted for Brexit, fundamentally because they hate BAME people, particularly Muslims. Thankfully they now seem to be outnumbered by those who do have some empathy towards their fellow humans, although there are still those who rage over rubber dinghies landing in Southern England, to the point of strongly suggesting on social media that said dinghies be fired upon by our armed forces. I should add, as a middle-aged Scot I only voted SNP for the first time at the 2019 general election, as a tactical vote to ensure that the Tory candidate in my constituency did not get in. I am still on the fence regarding independence, although if the Tories get another four years in Westminster after the next election, it may be the least-worst option.
I loved the charge at the end, where the rubber battle axes of the unwashed and unkempt barbarian Scotts (whose cavalry rode bareback) bounced and wiggled with each step.
Like Gods and Generals, Braveheart shouldn't be shown in history classes unless its shown for homework purposes (show the kids, and then have them research the inaccuracies etc). It surprises me how many history classrooms over here in England have shown the Cate Blanchett Elizabeth II movies as if they're historically accurate, when they're absolute NOT. If people enjoy Braveheart as a movie on its own despite the inaccuracies, all the more power to them.
This movie made me love the Scottish Wars of Independence. Then I read the real story. I wish they would have stuck to the real Wallace. He was far more interesting. Now, Robert the Bruce, his story is freaking amazing.
Yes, ok, but the did the battle of Stirling, or rather, Battle of Stirling Bridge..........in an open freaking field, the bridge was the whole reason the Scots won, that's why they fought there!
When asked by a local why the Battle of Stirling Bridge was filmed on an open plain, Gibson answered that "the bridge got in the way". "Aye," the local answered. "That's what the English found."
So you expect a TH-cam channel entirely devoted to analyzing the historic accuracy of films to not analyze and criticise the history inaccuracies of a film? Seems kind of unfair.
My issue with the History Buffs video on Braveheart isn't that it points out the inaccuracies, but that it basically calls the film garbage, which is obviously not true for most people.
@@WarDankEagle What makes a film good or bad is completely subjective. Personally I enjoy Braveheart but if History Buffs dislikes it I'm not going to hold it against him.
I adore Braveheart and i''m not too proud to say it. Edit: but... I cant have you taking a shot at my boy Nick Hodges, someone who prides themselves on historically accurate movies. It has plenty of problems from that perspective... Like that Edward's heir is presumed to be the child of an affair between Wallace and Isabella who was 9 when he died.... that's beyond even the examples you gave from Spartacus
You must excuse him, his country wouldn't exist for hundreds of years. British Empire was the biggest empire in human history. That is in my eyes a sign of success.
Don't particularly agree with your view that historical accuracy doesn't matter as long as it's not your own history then it needs to be accurate. Just cause it doesn't matter to you doesn't mean it doesn't matter to others
Great insight, and a lot of funny parts, but the most telling point is the last - that Braveheart is an inspiring piece of art, and that it is okay to be inspired by it. Even if one agrees with the history nitpickers (and I enjoy those videos as well), this fact remains, to me, to be the most important one. One scene that didn't pop up in this video essay is one of the strongest for me when it comes to this inspiration aspect. When Robert tells off his dad, citing the fact that he wants to believe, like Wallace does... that one always gets me, and Angus McFayden's performance is outstanding. I've seen it a score or more times and it still elicits a pang.
One thing to note, and that may explain the opening plot in boyhood and the end being right after his death, is that from my understanding the movie is based on "The Actes and Deidis of the Illustre and Vallyeant Campioun Schir William Wallace" by Blind Harry the poet from the late 15th century. This poem follows nearly that same timeline as the movie and I believe in the DVD extras Mel Gibson even says that most of what they were able to research of Wallace was from that poem. Its a romanticized version of Wallace's life and at one point was the second most popular book in Scotland after the Holy Bible. So suck it historians, its a historically accurate depiction of a historical relic that is a historically inaccurate biography of William Wallace.
The sequence with the young Wallace makes it a huge ton more relatable for the young audience, which I am assuming most commentators here are, or rather were on the first viewing of the film.
Gosh Darn-it! Atun-Shie Films has helped soften my seasonal depression so much this year. This review in particular is a great while doing dishes. Thank you, sir!
I'm conflicted when it comes to historical accuracy, like putting those tall bunkers on the beach in Saving Private Ryan was brilliant (if inaccurate)! But I guess it bugs me when it comes to portraying historical figures with very different character to their real life counterparts. Unless it's comedy, that's always an exception. In the end, if you aren't trying to be accurate and people don't care anyway; why not invent characters in the same scenarios based on the historical figures?
Although I am a huge history fan, this is a nice take and opinion on the usual review of Braveheart focusing on the inspiration it gives rather than the history. Well done.
Great piece but I'm afraid this 'Braveheart was totemistic in/responsible for the rise of Scottish nationalism' just isn't the case. Scottish nationalism as a political force goes back at least to the 20s and its resurgence in the last thirty years is largely down to a quite another conservative homophobe, played in a very different type of historical epic, by Meryl Streep. Braveheart's popularity was down the novelty of its romantic depiction of Scottish history when our domestic intelligentsia had been telling us for several centuries that the most noble sight any of us would ever see would be the high road to England. But we still realised that a lot of it was bollocks.
The CGI thing is definitely a balancing act, because while I agree it hasn't been good for capturing the individual perspective and infantry combat, you NEVER got shots like those catapults in movies before LOTR. I agree, stick to the practical effects for swinging swords, but it still can be used for the fantastic. He praises GoT and forgets it has CGI Dragons and Zombies.
Zulu is a total masterpiece, and I have watched it probably hundreds of times over the decades since I first saw it in the cinema in the week of its release ,,,but it bears very little resemblance to the actual battle of Rorkes Drift, which was shamelessly used by the British establishment to obfuscate the national humiliation of Isandhlwana and, more particularly, Lord Chelmsford almost unbelievable incompetence. Chard and Bromhead (it turns out) played very little if any part in organising the actual defence, which in reality was masterminded by the Swiss bloke with the dodgy leg ...and so on. Waterloo is a lot better, although again it is a massive pr job for the Brits, who had comprehensively lost the battle and were rescued by the Prussians under Blucher. Christopher Plummer was too "winsome" to be the Iron Duke, Blucher was just a bit part, but at least Steiger was an excellent last-days Napoleon.
Just an a quick nitpick, the Stone of Scone is pronounced “Skoon”. I loved the video btw! I’ve always had mixed thoughts on Braveheart but never been able to articulate why, but this video just really resonates with how I feel about the movie. 😁
Patrick McGoohan did not get the credit he deserved. He gave us one of the best villain performances ever. Subtle, menacing and, most importantly incredibly charismatic. Too many films rely on a villain which is the polar opposite of the hero, thus cowardly and ultimately incompetent. One of the great things of Braveheart is that he portrays the villain as an actually competent leader, probably as good for England as Wallace was for Scotland (in the DVD commentary, Gibson says that he deemed Edward a great king for England and did not want that his ruthlessness overshadowed his credits as a ruler). In a sense, he anticipated what Tywin Lannister was in Game of Thrones: a man who, despite ordering the death of thousands of innocents, we cannot help but admire for his charisma, authority and commitment.
My father said that his original viewing of Braveheart was entirely soured by the defenestration scene, because a bunch of people in the audience started laughing when Philip broke his neck, and he only saw it as a hate crime that the movie was (maybe unintentionally) playing for laughs.
When I first watched Braveheart I was 11, but I had read some books, some more academic than others, about British history. What annoyed me most about the movie was the battle of Stirling (Bridge), I had read about the battle and tactics used (thanks Horrible Histories), I had been looking forward to it, and was a little peeved when they completely ignored that bit. Which leads me into my point. Where historical inaccuracy can be problematic (in my opinion). I had thought of William Wallace as tactically brilliant because of what I had read before, a sort of lesser Napoleon who met his Waterloo at Falkirk and I don't think the movie did him justice for that. We spend the 90 minutes being told he's smart, but then with nothing to show for it, all he does is pull off a textbook hammer and anvil move and wins the day (maybe I play too much Total War, and so I have skewed my view of medieval battles, but I feel the English should have seen the Scottish Cavalry coming). I think Braveheart could have made Wallace greater, and they missed the opportunity.
I love your videos but you need to understand that much of the hate this film gets particularly in the UK gets is for the same reasons you (rightly) bash Gods and Generals. In the same way that films has spread frustrating misconceptions worldwide about the nature of the Civil War, its place in American history and the relationship between North and South this film give a very distorted picture of Britain and the relationship between Scotland and England. In response to section six, if a Brit said their vote on Brexit was inspired by watching Shakespeare's Henry V, they would be rightly derided. I think that's the same reason that is gets just as much hate in Scotland as it does England. And as you say, this was made by Americans for Americans. Other than that, its battle scenes are a guilty pleasure and James Horner's soundtrack is just incredible.
As a Scot the thing I find most egregious, by far, in this video is your mispronunciation of the town of Falkirk. It's pronounced fall kirk......but we never talk about that anyway cos we lost. Asides from that, great video, great channel, keep it up.
Thoroughly enjoyed your work on this although I didn’t agree with all that you said. I came across your channel via Cypher’s great channel and I will be watching your future work, thanks from an English bastard 😊
You should do more 'fixing' videos, that was fun. Would be interested to see your take on the Patriot, including the issues with its depiction of slavery, per Spike Lee "For three hours The Patriot dodged around, skirted about or completely ignored slavery." Whenever I see videos about the Patriot it is always by someone English, and it would be nice to see the film reviewed from an American perspective.
I think you actually proved that people who watched Braveheart didn't actually seek out the truth, or seem to show any interest in learning about history. So what was the point of that sequence? Also, are you saying a more historically accurate movie on the same subject couldn't be good, or even better? Are we not allowed to dream that someday we could have both? I personally go down one step for every anachronism in a movie or TV show until I'm out the door. Good channel though.
I appreciate both points of view here (regarding historical inaccuracy, that is). On the one hand, I did (and, I assume, still do, although it's been almost two decades since I've last seen it) like Braveheart, and I also find it hard to care about when kilts started being worn. On the other hand... in a way, I think the reason historical geeks have a hard time with Braveheart is precisely because it's such a good movie when it comes to inspiring the desired emotional reaction in viewers. With that emotional reaction, comes an emotional attachment to the version of events portrayed in the movie. I didn't know about the whole kilts thing, but I do still remember learning after seeing the movie that William Wallace and the princess of Wales never met... and that felt disappointing to me. This is what happens with historical fiction that's even remotely well-done: the majority of viewers become emotionally attached to the version of events portrayed in the fiction, often to the point of preferring to reject the truth in favor of the movie's lie. It happens with Gone with the Wind ("what do you mean, the slaves wouldn't have loved Scarlett?" "What do you mean, the South weren't the good guys?"), with Titanic ("what do you mean, the great tragedy wasn't the loss of Jack Dawson's life?"), with Hamilton ("what do you mean, the duel wasn't really about the election between Burr and Jefferson and in fact took place some years later?"), and so on. Some of these historical inaccuracies are more pertinent in the present day than others, of course, but I can definitely understand how many of these historical inaccuracies would matter a great deal to somebody who cares about history for its own sake. To help put yourself in their shoes, ask yourself, if "Gods and Generals" were well-made, would that make it better, or worse? If it were well-made, that would mean more people would see it and prefer the version of events that the movie portrays. Which would be bad, because that version is a lie. A harmful lie. That's the only real difference between the historical inaccuracies in "Gods and Generals" and the historical inaccuracies in "Braveheart" -- modern-day relevance, which is important... but then, history for its own sake is also important, to a history buff.
Coming here after five years to say medieval battles just keep getting better. Outlaw King, and uh...The King... are two of my favorite movies, and both the battles of Loudoun Hill and Agincourt respectively are amazing. They both exemplify the historic tactics and the horror of medieval warfare extremely well.
Love the Battle of Loudon Hill in Outlaw King. So good! Though the Battle of Agincourt in The King would have been much better if they followed the historical accounts of the real battle closer.
The part where he questions random people about history made me understand that human civilization is fucked And not in the 99% of Atun-Shei Films' videos kind of way Thanks for the video btw
So, I really like your videos overall, especially your Civil War videos, but I have kind of a bone to pick with you over this one and I think you are sort of letting your bias towards the Civil War period overshadow the issues with this film. Many of the same things you criticize Gods and Generals for, you let pass completely with this film. For example, you complain about the historical accuracy of Gods and Generals and you make it clear that it did really well on the minutiae of historical accuracy, but that it painted a completely incorrect portrait of the time period. Then you say that one of the gripes people have about Braveheart is it's historical accuracy and then poke fun at the kilts like that's the HUGE issue. But it's not. Just like Gods and Generals, Braveheart completely reframes the historical narrative, effectively (and in some cases outright) lying to make their point. Braveheart paints a picture of a poor, impoverished and rural Scotland having been crushed under the yoke of a powerful, wealthy, centralized England for ages and ages. Nothing could be further from the truth during the time period. "The Scottish War of Independence" really should have been called, "the Continuing feud between the two most powerful kingdoms of Britannia." At the time of Wallaces rebellion, Scotland had been occupied by England for TWO YEARS. Prior to that, they had a powerful, centralized kingdom, with a largely homogenous Celtic population that strongly supported King Alexander II. In fact, Scotland had been such a strong kingdom in the years prior that they repulsed the Norman invaders that would conquer England and ultimately Ireland. It's completely disingenuous to frame them as these dirt poor farmers bringing pitchforks to battle the same as it's equally disingenuous to portray every single man in the English army as a full kitted Man-At-Arms. I understand making them look different for a modern audience, but the filmmakers did NOT have to paint them so drastically. Almost every single soldier in the English army is dressed like a minor noble while some of the Scots are showing up with farm equipment. It's done to slant and obviously biased picture against one side... which is exactly what Gods and Generals did. The other comparison to Gods and Generals... you specifically call out that film for not being "bloody enough". And rightly suggest that if you really wanted to depict the battles of the American Civil War they would have to be filled with violence and gore because anything else is just a glamorized and bleached version of the horrific events. I agree. The War of Scottish Independence deserves the same respect and yet in THIS case you go out of your way to praise the lack of overt blood or gore. Those are really my two biggest issues with this review. Otherwise, I love your work!
I generally agree with you, and I like Braveheart a lot. But in many areas I don't see how caring more about historical fidelity would be a detriment to the film. You yourself said at the beginning that the historical Wallace could have been a much more interesting character to base Willy Dubya on than "Scottish warrior non-Jesus". History is NEVER boring! It's never not-interesting! It's the best place to go and get characters and plot ideas from! But even the small things, if they don't detract from the movie (like the kilt or no kilt debate), why would you not want they changed? If they made a movie based the Hostage Crisis where the main character is a mostly made up badass perfect CIA agent undercover, all of the Iranians are dressed like Saudi royals and Intifada guerrilla, Tehran looks like a mix of Mekka and Agrabah from Aladdin, Khomeini appears and is a slithering, kniving mastermind after global upheaval played by Jack Black, Jimmy Carter is a good, tough man of action played by Aaron Eckhart, and in the end one of the guards, Antonio Banderas, befriends the CIA agent, but is ultimately betrayed by Jimmy Carter, who leaves him behind, and this man is called Osama Bin Laden, and will kickstart Al Qaeda just to take revenge on America... This movie is so fucking good, it's crazy and sweeps at the Oscars in a deserving way (not in a Green Book kinda way) ... would it take you more than five minutes to suspend ALL of your disbeliefs? Or would you be weirded out every five minutes? And EVEN IF the film is not 100% accurate, which, owing to the nature of History, is impossible (which historiographical current do you follow?) , I would appreciate it if films are at least approached by scriptwriters, and set and costume designers, who are soaked in the period's spirit and general idea. The past eras which are the most removed from us suffer from a general lack of care when it comes to this. Romans are usually stand-ins for the US military (except in HBO'sRome, which is, as you said, very authentic in presenting the Roman mindset and attitudes. You also bring up John Adams, another great example), movies set in the Middle Ages are usually about intolerance, sexism or the plight of the poor, it can always be about how war is bad... and in the end none of the great questions of their day are addressed. I don't necessarily want to see a movie where the main issue is the Investiture Controversy or Thomas Aquinas vs Agustine of Hippo... but you look at The Name of the Rose, and you discover a movie which is deeply soaked in the issues that really mattered to people from that time. You see the delight of art seen by someone who hardly ever sees art, you experience sex as a young monk in a super torrid scene (which my teachers at school described as out of place, not realising that the scene is hyper sexed up because they want you to feel like Adso is feeling.), you understand some of their visions on God and faith... I would like to see a movie where the Roman legionary in the IIIrd Century is worried that his gods have abandoned him and his land, and that maybe it is time to seek salvation somewhere else. Like that weird cow-killing cult of soldiers, or those sun-worshippers. I'd like to see a movie where the Crusader experiences what it must have been to go on a crusade and revel in salvation with countless dead at his feet, feeling happy that he's now forgiven for his sins. I would like to see a film which portrays the deep feeling of isolation and the righteousness that Reformists felt when no one else agreed with their own interpretation of Scripture (wait, that films exists and it's called The VVitch)... you get my point. Anyway, great video.
When I was just a boy/young teenager with no knowledge or even taste of movies whatsoever, I still felt that the romance subplot was kind of crap :D And at 35:40 I am so with you. And I studied more than just military history at university
As someone who enjoys History buffs and Lindybeige i can sympathize with you and the "Historical accuracy" trope to an extent, I didnt know a damn thing about scottish history before watching "braveheart" with my Father as a kid but it didnt make an impression on me like "This is how things were exactly" for many reasons that were obvious to me even as a kid but it did make me ALOT more interested in medieval history as a whole
There’s already a good theatrical piece about Edward II which deals with the complexities of homosexuality, his marriage, the effect on his queen, who betrays him, her lover, and tons of other shit ending in a truly scary death scene. It’s called Edward II, by Christopher Marlowe, who was almost certainly gay himself. There is exactly one modern film version that isn’t very good. But instead of the really interesting Isabella, with her speech beginning “oh, miserable and distressed queen,” we get this bullshit. It’s enough to make you weep. (Also, on the Renaissance stage, the weeping queen trying to call Edward back to his heterosexual marriage would have been played by a boy, so there’s that.)
The irony of your whole section on the history of film battles is I miss the way battles were done in old Hollywood Epics, I'm sick of modern movies showing off how much more "gritty" and "real" they are. I also love the battle of pelanor fields in ROTK.
. . . in regards to the deleted scene with Prince Edward there's another deleted scene that I think Mel Gibson was referring to. *NOt The ONe YOu Presented In This Vid.
Very nice, but Egypt had a population of 2.4 million at the end of the 12th century. After somewhat bad harvests in the 10th-11th century the land became an agricultural wonderland again (like in antiquity). Armies of 50.000 were certainly possible, even more. 200.000 is incidentally what Riley-Smith gives for the army of the crusaders at Hatin.
I highly doubt the Crusaders states could muster 200.000 men when the Romans themselves could barely field an army of 40.000 a century earlier,in their campaign against the Seljuk Turks.I don't believe that even Saladin could raise such numbers.
I love history and it kind of annoys me when watching a false historical film. I'd say the Patriot is probably the worse Mel Gibson movie. The scene at his plantation where the slaves are actually workers is horse shit. I'd say the best is we were Soldiers. That movie is incredibly well done with it's history and it's super compelling. Braveheart is somewhere in the middle it's not accurate but compelling. I would always recommend the movie to other people but I would never watch the movie with someone cause I already know my smart ass would ruin the experience.
Techically The Patriot is not a Mel Gibson film. Sure he starred in it, but he didn't direct it or write it and he didn't have the same role/influence in it as he did in Braveheart. I do agree it's FAR worse than Braveheart.
We didn't need to see Wallace and a kid, but I would argue we needed to see his father. This movie is very much about fathers and sons- we see the relationships between Gleeson's character and his father, between Longshanks and his son, Robert and his father... gotta see Billy Boy's deal too.
I remember when I was a kid and my history teacher actually praised Braveheart because it brought up characters nobody would have ever even heard of or cared to read about (the commonfolk) if iot wasn't for the movie even though it wasn't all that accurate.
Princess Isabelle has another role in the story other than to warn Wallace of Longshanks' attack. She gets revenge at Longshanks, while he's paralyzed, unable to speak, and dying, by telling him that she's pregnant with Wallace's child. She pretty much tells Longshanks' bloodline has been displaced, and that she will overthrow his son after he's gone. If any of that actually happened, that would've led to an interesting retelling of Christopher Marlowe's Edward II. In that play, Edward III punishes his mother and her lover for killing his father. In another universe, how would Edward III react to the revelation of being Wallace's secret offspring? Of course, I know that Isabelle never had a relationship with Wallace, and she was a child when she got married to Edward. Still, it's a interesting alternate take on history. If it were a pure fantasy retelling of Wallace's story, then a retelling of Marlowe's Edward II as a sequel would've been compelling to see. I disagree with your assessment on Wallace's childhood scenes taking to long. I rather like the way they were paced and filmed. It suits the needs of the story well for me. Still, I can see that you wanted to have a closer retelling of Wallace's actual story, it would probably need to begin when Wallace was much older. Interestingly, Kubrick, who directed Spartacus, felt that the script's take on Spartacus was bad because it didn't include Spartacus' flaws or portray why he made the tactical mistakes he made. That corresponds with your view of Wallace. I personally like the films' portrayals of Spartacus and Wallace. If more accurate films were made, than Wallace's and Spartacus' historical flaws should be explored. As for Edward II's portrayal... Even though he's portrayed as a snooty, self-important wimp, I still empathized with his character and felt bad for him. That's a testament to Peter Hanley's portrayal of Prince Edward, since his performance gave the character a lot nuances the script version probably didn't have. I felt bad for Prince Edward when his father beat him up for making mistakes, or when his father threw his boyfriend, the only person who seemed to love him, out the window. I didn't like how he treats Princess Isabelle, but I did sympathize with what he was dealing with. If an historical accurate film about Wallace's rebellion against England was ever made, I can see you giving advice on how it would be done, Atun-Shei. It would have to be a medieval epic that properly captures the grittiness and the tactics of that period on film.
People talk about how great a revenge it is for Princess Isabelle to commit paternity fraud against Edward II, but that falls apart when you think about it. It would mean William Wallace's only child would be raised by his enemies and grow up to be the kind of man Wallace would have hated.
Atun-Shei films is my second best TH-cam channel, just behind Pero Eso Es Otra Historia and his brother Agujeros de Guion. I recommend you Pero Eso Es Otra Historia, a history channel which resumes that entire history of humanity chronologically.
12:09-12:14 I hope and pray to god that you will never allow anyone to use these lines out of context. (Years later when you become the next Steven Spielberg) “Gentlemen the film is finally done! Now we can release the greatest battle scene the world has ever seen” “Yeah that’s all fine and good, but would you mind explaining what this quote means....” (Your brain) “oh fuck” (12:09-12:14) “Uh that was me describing the battle of the bastards in game of thrones I swear!”
They did a good job in Henry showing the actual battle, the Mudd was the main factor and the way the Welsh long Bowman used ther mallets when The French got close and won the battle and kept england from eventually getting invaded was perfect
"B(t)rave(sty)heart" - there, fixed. Regarding Gibson's 'serviceable' performance, that's a fair assessment assuming the service is a writ to be taken before the magistrate in the shire where he resides and so forth...
"First off, she's French, so she's clearly not a virgin"
It's an obvious joke, but it's still a good one
I think you're confusing women and firearms. Want to buy a "French" joke punchline? Only fired a million times and never dropped with very good timing.
@@groovinhooves I heard a good joke about French submarines but no one would buy it.
Nice to see your lobotomy was a complete success bubba.
@@erickharper2908Mr Morison, is that you?
Andrew...you a$$hole! I wanted to see boobies on my bday! 🤣🤣🤣
Whether they realize it or not, people often think they know things because they saw it in movies. I had to explain twice to people that Prima Nocta never existed even though they were concinved it was because Braveheart told them so. And three times that the Russians at Stalingrad didn't have one rifle for every two men even though that's what it was in Enemy at the Gates.
As pedantic as internet historians may sometimes be, it's never a bad thing to spread correct information.
It's more annoying when they treat a good movie as awful for historical inaccuracies, and a majority of people legit don't give a single shit and don't take it seriously. Those that do, well, that's their fault
The shortage of rifles may have not happened at Stalingrad, but it did happen in ww2. I knew a guy whose father fought for the Germans and his father said there were instance where their trenches were attacked by masses of Russian soldiers most of whom were not armed. He described German machine gunners weeping as they butchered unarmed Russians.
@@jonmce1 I'm sorry, but that sounds like complete bullshit. Russian generals did not see their troops as disposable. Rifles were still a lot cheaper to replace than soldiers were, especially given that they would still generally require training, and officers to lead them. Sending in soldiers before they're trained, to die in droves charging enemy guns is just complete nonsense. Poorly trained troops don't have anything like that much motivation to charge forwards until gunned down, even in situations when they're well armed. For the most part, only elite soldiers have that level of courage and motivation, but elite soldiers would obviously never be sent into a battle without weapons. If you want to send in poorly trained troops to try to wear down your enemy, making sure that all of them have a weapon and ammunition is a SMALL price to pay vs. the huge cost in morale which would result from trying to send half of them in un-armed.
Well just to be a little bit pedantic, it's not clear if the ius primae noctis really existed or not. there is some limited historical evidence speaking for it but too little to really be certain and unclear if it was only propaganda to discredit other cultures or not. It's pretty safe to say it didnt exist in scotland when the movie took place though.
@@syncmonism the crying part does sound like bullshit, but at the beginning of Operation Barbarossa, the Soviet generals moved troops and tanks, and not enough supplies to equip the ones currently in the field. A large part of why the soviet tank forces did so poorly at the being was due to the fact that soviet generals moved the tanks first and then the food, fuel, ammunition, and whatever else the tankers needed. the situation eventually unfucked itself by the time the spring of 42 rolled around, and logistics became a priority again
reading homoerotic fanfic written by a catolic dude is arguably the best part
Really digging the Age of Empires soundtrack.
noticed it instantly also
I've said it before and I'll say it again; Braveheart is a good film, but bad history. If it were a fantasy film it would be among the greats, but they set it in the Scottish War of Independence and so it tacitly laid claim to accuracy, and so it gained an obligation *to* accuracy, which it failed to provide.
EDIT: I Should clarify; I actually fucking love this film. I just know for a fact it's shit history and treat it as historical fantasy. I mean James Horner's soundtrack alone can do no wrong.
Also, quick aside, but if you like Mel Gibson films and good action, I recommend "We Were Soldiers" if you haven't already seen it.
That's all well and good until the film is used in Scottish Nationalist rhetoric (with quotes from the film being used by MSP's in the Scottish Parliament)
@@owenhay7154 Tory Ruth Davidson (before she tanked) used quotes from effing Churchill! I do agree with you, however - but once something becomes the "zeitgeist" a certain amount of that sort of thing becomes inevitable ...as of course is Scottish independence.
Which sucks because the battle of Sterling Bridge would have been awesome to scene on screen.
*I wish more people recognized Braveheart as still a good movie, even though not a good history one. Outlaw King is more accurate but relatively boring and less inspiring and less memorable than Braveheart. Braveheart makes you feel. Makes you remember.*
See this is the thing. It isn't the historical accuracy that gets me - and I love other films like Apocalypto despite their many inaccuracies. But as a Scot, seeing other Scots taking the William Wallace from this film, or the stereotype shown by this film, and using it as propaganda for Scottish independence just irks me. If you're gonna base your desire for independence in something, make sure it's at least accurate! Politicised historical inaccuracy is the problem.
Edit: And the omission of Andrew Moray as co-commander at the Battle of Stirling Bridge annoys me as an inhabitant of the area of Moray!
meh I support Scottish independence as a Scot and braveheart was utter gobshite. the real story of Wallace is way better
They might as well have it as an ahistorical fiction like say Master and Commander, than William Wallace as the main character why not another person and remove the semi historical story all together and make it someone elses story.
Someone finally said it
If it's not even accurate, go all the way! Have Gibson ride a Ceratosaurus into battle against a Woolly rhinoceros!
In real life the Princess who was a “19 year old virgin beauty” was about 4 years old during the war of Scottish independence.
So she was a virgin after all then.
@@Wallyworld30 hopefully
@@Wallyworld30 Her father, uncles, brothers, brother cousins, and cousins were French as well, so probably not
And about 12 when she came to England.
I'm at 4:05 where you talk about battles and I must add that battles DID NOT look like this.
On the contrary, they were fought in an orderly fashion where two armies met each other in tight formations, sometimes even disengaged to carry the wounded away from the front and then re-engaged again. Only the first two or three lines of men were fighting at the same time, while keeping the formation.
In this way, battles weren't as chaotic as we often see in movies, or at least definitely not in a sense where people blindly charged at each other with no regards to their own survival. What was actually chaotic was that you, as a soldier, had no idea what was going on elsewhere on the battlefield because of the limited means of communication. Your squad could even be winning the melee on your own side only to find out few moments later that the main bulk of your army had been routed 30 minutes earlier and now you're surrounded.
I believe this trend of depicting historical battles like metal mosh-pits is coming to its end, as more and more people are becoming educated of how things truly were.
glad someone said it
Yeah the only time they probably even fought like that is if the lines broke but it’s was only a few guys while the rest reformed the line behind them
The historical inaccuracies of metal-mosh pits in movies.
Thank you! The battles are what I hate about this movie. They're the historical inaccuracy that bothers me more than anything else in the movie.
I can never not be mad that the Braveheart presented battle of Sterling lacks a bridge. Had it been the battle of open field the English would have won as they continued to in most open fields for 600 plus years.
When asked by a local why the Battle of Stirling Bridge was filmed on an open plain, Gibson answered that "the bridge got in the way". "Aye," the local answered. "That's what the English found."
Fun fact, Edward II's lovers weren't wimpy caricatures at all. One of them, Hugh DeSpenser had actually been a pirate before arriving at the English court. From what I've read, the English nobility didn't so much have a problem with him being gay, the issue was him promoting and rewarding guys he thought were hot - at the expense of older families.
It's also debated whether he was even gay; one biography argues he just liked to lionise "big brother" types, like Piers Gaveston, who were maybe giving him an encouragement and sense of belonging his father signally failed to provide. It seems possible the whole gay thing was simply made up by political rivals - even the way he supposedly met his death has been claimed to be a fiction, which did not first surface until many decades after his death. I think getting at the truth is very problematic after 700 years.
@@gueststrivler
I like the theory that he survived his deposition for many years, with Edward III paying him hush money.
He wasn't a pirate before arriving at the English court. He was already a chamberlain and Edward's favourite, got exiled, was supposed to leave England, but didn't do that and instead became a pirate! The guy obviously rocked, no wonder Edward loved him so much.
Regarding Andrew de Moray, I think you can argue Braveheart's Wallace is a composite of both of them. Moray was a Gaelic-speaking Highlander who brought the Highlands into the Scottish coalition, and Wallace in the film is shown as a Highlander (rather than the much more English-adjacent Lowlander he actually was).
I disagree that it being historically inaccurate isn't a problem. I remember this got shown in my history class at secondary school and I was very vocal in pointing out the inaccuracies because it seemed like it was shown just because the teacher had given up. There was no follow up or cross-examining the film, just "as we're learning about the period, here you go." which is disingenuous and terrible teaching. I for one get History Buffs's anger because I had to listen to the kids in my class later regurgitate what they had seen as fact. It still makes me cringe.
And yeah, I enjoyed the film, but to excuse it without context is just ridiculous. I just equate it to Patriot 2, This Time it's Personal.
actually it is .... a problem , it screams Hollywood , I love Braveheart as a film but , the fact is it is disrespecting the history of William Wallace and Scotland as a country
Braveheart was released just before I started getting into medieval re-enactment. It shaped my early adulthood and have so many conflicting feelings about the film which have evolved and changed over the years since.
This video did a good job of separating out the different elements and discussing their different strengths.
I'm really glad I found this channel
I loved Braveheart but take none of the history seriously. Oddly, most of my Scottish friends, even the SNP supporters, hate Braveheart with a passion.
Scottish here. Not a fan of braveheart. But love hating the English
Scottish here. Not a fan of braveheart. But love hating the SNP
@@makadoz how nationalistic and xenophobic is the SNP?
@@JCOdrjones They arent nationalistic and they are xenophobic against are scots and english
@@makadozter garbage. If you want xenophobia, I direct you to the parts of England which voted for Brexit, fundamentally because they hate BAME people, particularly Muslims.
Thankfully they now seem to be outnumbered by those who do have some empathy towards their fellow humans, although there are still those who rage over rubber dinghies landing in Southern England, to the point of strongly suggesting on social media that said dinghies be fired upon by our armed forces.
I should add, as a middle-aged Scot I only voted SNP for the first time at the 2019 general election, as a tactical vote to ensure that the Tory candidate in my constituency did not get in. I am still on the fence regarding independence, although if the Tories get another four years in Westminster after the next election, it may be the least-worst option.
The redhead at the beginning of the video is Ariel Piper Fawn. If anyone's wondering.
Blessed are the sauce-givers, for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven
thank you kind sir/madam/apache attack helicopter
I loved the charge at the end, where the rubber battle axes of the unwashed and unkempt barbarian Scotts (whose cavalry rode bareback) bounced and wiggled with each step.
Gotta say, the Age of Empires music in the background of your videos is always a nice touch
Like Gods and Generals, Braveheart shouldn't be shown in history classes unless its shown for homework purposes (show the kids, and then have them research the inaccuracies etc). It surprises me how many history classrooms over here in England have shown the Cate Blanchett Elizabeth II movies as if they're historically accurate, when they're absolute NOT. If people enjoy Braveheart as a movie on its own despite the inaccuracies, all the more power to them.
This movie made me love the Scottish Wars of Independence. Then I read the real story. I wish they would have stuck to the real Wallace. He was far more interesting. Now, Robert the Bruce, his story is freaking amazing.
Like the actual William Wallace would just be a more fitting character, being literate, educated, and what not.
Any film about these years should include the immortal line,
I'll mak siccar.
Xev Bellringer is an exceptional storyteller.
Iam really not sure, how confortable iam with knowing peoples porn preferences.
🤨
the battle has no bridge, she was 9 and the timeline was all messed.
And Alexander III died in 1286 and not in 1280...
Way too early for the belted plaid.
D C inn. Y ugguu. (Yay. U u u u u ,
@@timnewell5120 I'm sorry, I haven't learned Lovecraftian yet.
His two handed sword its from the XVI century
Bro this deserves more views honestly
As a Brit I'm surprised how genuinely excited i was that an American lady knew who William the conqueror was
Lol this American lady knew the answers to all those questions also, except that Scots didn't wear kilts on the 12th-13th centuries. 😉
@@bonniea8189 So...the kilts were around 200 years too early?
Yes, ok, but the did the battle of Stirling, or rather, Battle of Stirling Bridge..........in an open freaking field, the bridge was the whole reason the Scots won, that's why they fought there!
When asked by a local why the Battle of Stirling Bridge was filmed on an open plain, Gibson answered that "the bridge got in the way". "Aye," the local answered. "That's what the English found."
So you expect a TH-cam channel entirely devoted to analyzing the historic accuracy of films to not analyze and criticise the history inaccuracies of a film? Seems kind of unfair.
My issue with the History Buffs video on Braveheart isn't that it points out the inaccuracies, but that it basically calls the film garbage, which is obviously not true for most people.
@@WarDankEagle What makes a film good or bad is completely subjective. Personally I enjoy Braveheart but if History Buffs dislikes it I'm not going to hold it against him.
It's not completely subjective, it can be objectively measured by things like IMDb ratings, critical response, Oscars etc. @@radrev.7818
I adore Braveheart and i''m not too proud to say it.
Edit: but... I cant have you taking a shot at my boy Nick Hodges, someone who prides themselves on historically accurate movies. It has plenty of problems from that perspective... Like that Edward's heir is presumed to be the child of an affair between Wallace and Isabella who was 9 when he died.... that's beyond even the examples you gave from Spartacus
Finally, for the first time, someone goes after the writer of the movie than other the director.
"England got its ass kicked per usual"
Press x to doubt
Lost the Hundred Years War. Ouch!
As France had 5 times the population of England at the time, the surprise is not that they lost the hundred years war, but that they nearly won!
You must excuse him, his country wouldn't exist for hundreds of years. British Empire was the biggest empire in human history. That is in my eyes a sign of success.
Don't particularly agree with your view that historical accuracy doesn't matter as long as it's not your own history then it needs to be accurate. Just cause it doesn't matter to you doesn't mean it doesn't matter to others
In my opinion its more important as people from another culture would find the film makers as insulting their history.
Great insight, and a lot of funny parts, but the most telling point is the last - that Braveheart is an inspiring piece of art, and that it is okay to be inspired by it. Even if one agrees with the history nitpickers (and I enjoy those videos as well), this fact remains, to me, to be the most important one.
One scene that didn't pop up in this video essay is one of the strongest for me when it comes to this inspiration aspect. When Robert tells off his dad, citing the fact that he wants to believe, like Wallace does... that one always gets me, and Angus McFayden's performance is outstanding. I've seen it a score or more times and it still elicits a pang.
One thing to note, and that may explain the opening plot in boyhood and the end being right after his death, is that from my understanding the movie is based on "The Actes and Deidis of the Illustre and Vallyeant Campioun Schir William Wallace" by Blind Harry the poet from the late 15th century. This poem follows nearly that same timeline as the movie and I believe in the DVD extras Mel Gibson even says that most of what they were able to research of Wallace was from that poem. Its a romanticized version of Wallace's life and at one point was the second most popular book in Scotland after the Holy Bible. So suck it historians, its a historically accurate depiction of a historical relic that is a historically inaccurate biography of William Wallace.
The sequence with the young Wallace makes it a huge ton more relatable for the young audience, which I am assuming most commentators here are, or rather were on the first viewing of the film.
Excellent review. I can't believe I just watched this for 40 mins. ALL the debating on how fixing The mistakes held my attention.
Gosh Darn-it! Atun-Shie Films has helped soften my seasonal depression so much this year. This review in particular is a great while doing dishes. Thank you, sir!
Would braveheart be a better movie if it was historically accurate? Watch the outlaw king and that question is answered with a resounding yes
I'm brian and so is my wife!
Hey Brian, I’m dad!
I'm conflicted when it comes to historical accuracy, like putting those tall bunkers on the beach in Saving Private Ryan was brilliant (if inaccurate)! But I guess it bugs me when it comes to portraying historical figures with very different character to their real life counterparts. Unless it's comedy, that's always an exception.
In the end, if you aren't trying to be accurate and people don't care anyway; why not invent characters in the same scenarios based on the historical figures?
You crazy man, i'm going to watch this entirely
That fleeing Rome Total War general made my day, thank you Sir. Your channel is a delight to watch.
That Wallace fellow sure has great aim with rocks.
Although I am a huge history fan, this is a nice take and opinion on the usual review of Braveheart focusing on the inspiration it gives rather than the history. Well done.
William Wallace was such a mary sue, nobody could have such good aim with rocks.
Wow, I guess your channel got attention (including mine) for the Civil War stuff, but these old videos are just great.
I can't believe you got Tom Green to make a guest appearance. He did a tremendous job with that deleted scene reading.
Great piece but I'm afraid this 'Braveheart was totemistic in/responsible for the rise of Scottish nationalism' just isn't the case.
Scottish nationalism as a political force goes back at least to the 20s and its resurgence in the last thirty years is largely down to a quite another conservative homophobe, played in a very different type of historical epic, by Meryl Streep.
Braveheart's popularity was down the novelty of its romantic depiction of Scottish history when our domestic intelligentsia had been telling us for several centuries that the most noble sight any of us would ever see would be the high road to England.
But we still realised that a lot of it was bollocks.
Beautifully put. I completely agree.
If you think the battle scenes in Zulu, Waterloo, and LOTR 'suck' then you need to watch them again.
Not quite the battle, but the scene of them singing at each other in Zulu gives me chills every time.
The shock, horror and disgust between battles. Especially after the last one, made that an epic.
The CGI thing is definitely a balancing act, because while I agree it hasn't been good for capturing the individual perspective and infantry combat, you NEVER got shots like those catapults in movies before LOTR. I agree, stick to the practical effects for swinging swords, but it still can be used for the fantastic. He praises GoT and forgets it has CGI Dragons and Zombies.
Zulu is a total masterpiece, and I have watched it probably hundreds of times over the decades since I first saw it in the cinema in the week of its release ,,,but it bears very little resemblance to the actual battle of Rorkes Drift, which was shamelessly used by the British establishment to obfuscate the national humiliation of Isandhlwana and, more particularly, Lord Chelmsford almost unbelievable incompetence. Chard and Bromhead (it turns out) played very little if any part in organising the actual defence, which in reality was masterminded by the Swiss bloke with the dodgy leg ...and so on. Waterloo is a lot better, although again it is a massive pr job for the Brits, who had comprehensively lost the battle and were rescued by the Prussians under Blucher. Christopher Plummer was too "winsome" to be the Iron Duke, Blucher was just a bit part, but at least Steiger was an excellent last-days Napoleon.
They completely STOMP the battles in Braveheart in terms of filmcraft
13:30 "... and _Apocalypto_ pretty much invented the 'gritty historical chase movie' genre."
_The Naked Prey_ would like a word.
Just an a quick nitpick, the Stone of Scone is pronounced “Skoon”.
I loved the video btw! I’ve always had mixed thoughts on Braveheart but never been able to articulate why, but this video just really resonates with how I feel about the movie. 😁
Patrick McGoohan did not get the credit he deserved. He gave us one of the best villain performances ever. Subtle, menacing and, most importantly incredibly charismatic. Too many films rely on a villain which is the polar opposite of the hero, thus cowardly and ultimately incompetent. One of the great things of Braveheart is that he portrays the villain as an actually competent leader, probably as good for England as Wallace was for Scotland (in the DVD commentary, Gibson says that he deemed Edward a great king for England and did not want that his ruthlessness overshadowed his credits as a ruler). In a sense, he anticipated what Tywin Lannister was in Game of Thrones: a man who, despite ordering the death of thousands of innocents, we cannot help but admire for his charisma, authority and commitment.
My father said that his original viewing of Braveheart was entirely soured by the defenestration scene, because a bunch of people in the audience started laughing when Philip broke his neck, and he only saw it as a hate crime that the movie was (maybe unintentionally) playing for laughs.
LMAO
Yanks. 🤣
When I first watched Braveheart I was 11, but I had read some books, some more academic than others, about British history. What annoyed me most about the movie was the battle of Stirling (Bridge), I had read about the battle and tactics used (thanks Horrible Histories), I had been looking forward to it, and was a little peeved when they completely ignored that bit. Which leads me into my point. Where historical inaccuracy can be problematic (in my opinion). I had thought of William Wallace as tactically brilliant because of what I had read before, a sort of lesser Napoleon who met his Waterloo at Falkirk and I don't think the movie did him justice for that. We spend the 90 minutes being told he's smart, but then with nothing to show for it, all he does is pull off a textbook hammer and anvil move and wins the day (maybe I play too much Total War, and so I have skewed my view of medieval battles, but I feel the English should have seen the Scottish Cavalry coming). I think Braveheart could have made Wallace greater, and they missed the opportunity.
I love the way you look at film and history.
I love your videos but you need to understand that much of the hate this film gets particularly in the UK gets is for the same reasons you (rightly) bash Gods and Generals.
In the same way that films has spread frustrating misconceptions worldwide about the nature of the Civil War, its place in American history and the relationship between North and South this film give a very distorted picture of Britain and the relationship between Scotland and England.
In response to section six, if a Brit said their vote on Brexit was inspired by watching Shakespeare's Henry V, they would be rightly derided. I think that's the same reason that is gets just as much hate in Scotland as it does England. And as you say, this was made by Americans for Americans.
Other than that, its battle scenes are a guilty pleasure and James Horner's soundtrack is just incredible.
As a Scot the thing I find most egregious, by far, in this video is your mispronunciation of the town of Falkirk. It's pronounced fall kirk......but we never talk about that anyway cos we lost. Asides from that, great video, great channel, keep it up.
We won Falkirk 2: Electric Boogaloo tho. That one's fun
Thoroughly enjoyed your work on this although I didn’t agree with all that you said.
I came across your channel via Cypher’s great channel and I will be watching your future work, thanks from an English bastard 😊
1969 "Charge Of The Light Brigade" was a visuuuaaally sweeping CHARRRRRGE! The hand to hand w/ Russian artilery a weird brief after thought.
It's in Tennyson.
Plunging through battery stroke,
Right through the line they broke,
Cossack and Russian
Reeled from the sabre stroke...
You should do more 'fixing' videos, that was fun. Would be interested to see your take on the Patriot, including the issues with its depiction of slavery, per Spike Lee "For three hours The Patriot dodged around, skirted about or completely ignored slavery." Whenever I see videos about the Patriot it is always by someone English, and it would be nice to see the film reviewed from an American perspective.
I laughed out loud at “Are you asking me?”
AWESOME VIDEO! just subbed
I think you actually proved that people who watched Braveheart didn't actually seek out the truth, or seem to show any interest in learning about history. So what was the point of that sequence?
Also, are you saying a more historically accurate movie on the same subject couldn't be good, or even better? Are we not allowed to dream that someday we could have both? I personally go down one step for every anachronism in a movie or TV show until I'm out the door. Good channel though.
I appreciate both points of view here (regarding historical inaccuracy, that is).
On the one hand, I did (and, I assume, still do, although it's been almost two decades since I've last seen it) like Braveheart, and I also find it hard to care about when kilts started being worn.
On the other hand... in a way, I think the reason historical geeks have a hard time with Braveheart is precisely because it's such a good movie when it comes to inspiring the desired emotional reaction in viewers. With that emotional reaction, comes an emotional attachment to the version of events portrayed in the movie. I didn't know about the whole kilts thing, but I do still remember learning after seeing the movie that William Wallace and the princess of Wales never met... and that felt disappointing to me. This is what happens with historical fiction that's even remotely well-done: the majority of viewers become emotionally attached to the version of events portrayed in the fiction, often to the point of preferring to reject the truth in favor of the movie's lie. It happens with Gone with the Wind ("what do you mean, the slaves wouldn't have loved Scarlett?" "What do you mean, the South weren't the good guys?"), with Titanic ("what do you mean, the great tragedy wasn't the loss of Jack Dawson's life?"), with Hamilton ("what do you mean, the duel wasn't really about the election between Burr and Jefferson and in fact took place some years later?"), and so on. Some of these historical inaccuracies are more pertinent in the present day than others, of course, but I can definitely understand how many of these historical inaccuracies would matter a great deal to somebody who cares about history for its own sake.
To help put yourself in their shoes, ask yourself, if "Gods and Generals" were well-made, would that make it better, or worse? If it were well-made, that would mean more people would see it and prefer the version of events that the movie portrays. Which would be bad, because that version is a lie. A harmful lie. That's the only real difference between the historical inaccuracies in "Gods and Generals" and the historical inaccuracies in "Braveheart" -- modern-day relevance, which is important... but then, history for its own sake is also important, to a history buff.
Coming here after five years to say medieval battles just keep getting better. Outlaw King, and uh...The King... are two of my favorite movies, and both the battles of Loudoun Hill and Agincourt respectively are amazing. They both exemplify the historic tactics and the horror of medieval warfare extremely well.
Love the Battle of Loudon Hill in Outlaw King. So good! Though the Battle of Agincourt in The King would have been much better if they followed the historical accounts of the real battle closer.
The part where he questions random people about history made me understand that human civilization is fucked
And not in the 99% of Atun-Shei Films' videos kind of way
Thanks for the video btw
So, I really like your videos overall, especially your Civil War videos, but I have kind of a bone to pick with you over this one and I think you are sort of letting your bias towards the Civil War period overshadow the issues with this film. Many of the same things you criticize Gods and Generals for, you let pass completely with this film. For example, you complain about the historical accuracy of Gods and Generals and you make it clear that it did really well on the minutiae of historical accuracy, but that it painted a completely incorrect portrait of the time period. Then you say that one of the gripes people have about Braveheart is it's historical accuracy and then poke fun at the kilts like that's the HUGE issue. But it's not. Just like Gods and Generals, Braveheart completely reframes the historical narrative, effectively (and in some cases outright) lying to make their point. Braveheart paints a picture of a poor, impoverished and rural Scotland having been crushed under the yoke of a powerful, wealthy, centralized England for ages and ages. Nothing could be further from the truth during the time period. "The Scottish War of Independence" really should have been called, "the Continuing feud between the two most powerful kingdoms of Britannia." At the time of Wallaces rebellion, Scotland had been occupied by England for TWO YEARS. Prior to that, they had a powerful, centralized kingdom, with a largely homogenous Celtic population that strongly supported King Alexander II. In fact, Scotland had been such a strong kingdom in the years prior that they repulsed the Norman invaders that would conquer England and ultimately Ireland. It's completely disingenuous to frame them as these dirt poor farmers bringing pitchforks to battle the same as it's equally disingenuous to portray every single man in the English army as a full kitted Man-At-Arms. I understand making them look different for a modern audience, but the filmmakers did NOT have to paint them so drastically. Almost every single soldier in the English army is dressed like a minor noble while some of the Scots are showing up with farm equipment. It's done to slant and obviously biased picture against one side... which is exactly what Gods and Generals did.
The other comparison to Gods and Generals... you specifically call out that film for not being "bloody enough". And rightly suggest that if you really wanted to depict the battles of the American Civil War they would have to be filled with violence and gore because anything else is just a glamorized and bleached version of the horrific events. I agree. The War of Scottish Independence deserves the same respect and yet in THIS case you go out of your way to praise the lack of overt blood or gore.
Those are really my two biggest issues with this review. Otherwise, I love your work!
I generally agree with you, and I like Braveheart a lot. But in many areas I don't see how caring more about historical fidelity would be a detriment to the film. You yourself said at the beginning that the historical Wallace could have been a much more interesting character to base Willy Dubya on than "Scottish warrior non-Jesus". History is NEVER boring! It's never not-interesting! It's the best place to go and get characters and plot ideas from!
But even the small things, if they don't detract from the movie (like the kilt or no kilt debate), why would you not want they changed? If they made a movie based the Hostage Crisis where the main character is a mostly made up badass perfect CIA agent undercover, all of the Iranians are dressed like Saudi royals and Intifada guerrilla, Tehran looks like a mix of Mekka and Agrabah from Aladdin, Khomeini appears and is a slithering, kniving mastermind after global upheaval played by Jack Black, Jimmy Carter is a good, tough man of action played by Aaron Eckhart, and in the end one of the guards, Antonio Banderas, befriends the CIA agent, but is ultimately betrayed by Jimmy Carter, who leaves him behind, and this man is called Osama Bin Laden, and will kickstart Al Qaeda just to take revenge on America... This movie is so fucking good, it's crazy and sweeps at the Oscars in a deserving way (not in a Green Book kinda way) ... would it take you more than five minutes to suspend ALL of your disbeliefs? Or would you be weirded out every five minutes?
And EVEN IF the film is not 100% accurate, which, owing to the nature of History, is impossible (which historiographical current do you follow?) , I would appreciate it if films are at least approached by scriptwriters, and set and costume designers, who are soaked in the period's spirit and general idea. The past eras which are the most removed from us suffer from a general lack of care when it comes to this. Romans are usually stand-ins for the US military (except in HBO'sRome, which is, as you said, very authentic in presenting the Roman mindset and attitudes. You also bring up John Adams, another great example), movies set in the Middle Ages are usually about intolerance, sexism or the plight of the poor, it can always be about how war is bad... and in the end none of the great questions of their day are addressed.
I don't necessarily want to see a movie where the main issue is the Investiture Controversy or Thomas Aquinas vs Agustine of Hippo... but you look at The Name of the Rose, and you discover a movie which is deeply soaked in the issues that really mattered to people from that time. You see the delight of art seen by someone who hardly ever sees art, you experience sex as a young monk in a super torrid scene (which my teachers at school described as out of place, not realising that the scene is hyper sexed up because they want you to feel like Adso is feeling.), you understand some of their visions on God and faith...
I would like to see a movie where the Roman legionary in the IIIrd Century is worried that his gods have abandoned him and his land, and that maybe it is time to seek salvation somewhere else. Like that weird cow-killing cult of soldiers, or those sun-worshippers. I'd like to see a movie where the Crusader experiences what it must have been to go on a crusade and revel in salvation with countless dead at his feet, feeling happy that he's now forgiven for his sins. I would like to see a film which portrays the deep feeling of isolation and the righteousness that Reformists felt when no one else agreed with their own interpretation of Scripture (wait, that films exists and it's called The VVitch)... you get my point.
Anyway, great video.
Age of empire 2 music in the background.. The tutorial in Age of empire 2 is Brave heart
When I was just a boy/young teenager with no knowledge or even taste of movies whatsoever, I still felt that the romance subplot was kind of crap :D
And at 35:40 I am so with you. And I studied more than just military history at university
As someone who enjoys History buffs and Lindybeige i can sympathize with you and the "Historical accuracy" trope to an extent, I didnt know a damn thing about scottish history before watching "braveheart" with my Father as a kid but it didnt make an impression on me like "This is how things were exactly" for many reasons that were obvious to me even as a kid but it did make me ALOT more interested in medieval history as a whole
There’s already a good theatrical piece about Edward II which deals with the complexities of homosexuality, his marriage, the effect on his queen, who betrays him, her lover, and tons of other shit ending in a truly scary death scene. It’s called Edward II, by Christopher Marlowe, who was almost certainly gay himself. There is exactly one modern film version that isn’t very good. But instead of the really interesting Isabella, with her speech beginning “oh, miserable and distressed queen,” we get this bullshit. It’s enough to make you weep. (Also, on the Renaissance stage, the weeping queen trying to call Edward back to his heterosexual marriage would have been played by a boy, so there’s that.)
I forgot Andy used the Age of Empires II: The Conquerors Expansion music. God, I love that game.
The irony of your whole section on the history of film battles is I miss the way battles were done in old Hollywood Epics, I'm sick of modern movies showing off how much more "gritty" and "real" they are. I also love the battle of pelanor fields in ROTK.
Thanks for giving love to The Messenger (Joan of Arc)! That movie rules and is too little known.
24:35 at least my man has good taste
. . . in regards to the deleted scene with Prince Edward there's another deleted scene that I think Mel Gibson was referring to. *NOt The ONe YOu Presented In This Vid.
All that said, Great review brother....
knowing you watch Xev Bellringer has made you my new favourite youtuber
I wish you did more of these
Love the age of empires 2 music in the background 🔥🔥🔥
Very nice, but Egypt had a population of 2.4 million at the end of the 12th century. After somewhat bad harvests in the 10th-11th century the land became an agricultural wonderland again (like in antiquity). Armies of 50.000 were certainly possible, even more. 200.000 is incidentally what Riley-Smith gives for the army of the crusaders at Hatin.
I highly doubt the Crusaders states could muster 200.000 men when the Romans themselves could barely field an army of 40.000 a century earlier,in their campaign against the Seljuk Turks.I don't believe that even Saladin could raise such numbers.
so this is like the overlong first draft of a Brief History of Battles Scenes in Film
I love history and it kind of annoys me when watching a false historical film. I'd say the Patriot is probably the worse Mel Gibson movie. The scene at his plantation where the slaves are actually workers is horse shit. I'd say the best is we were Soldiers. That movie is incredibly well done with it's history and it's super compelling. Braveheart is somewhere in the middle it's not accurate but compelling. I would always recommend the movie to other people but I would never watch the movie with someone cause I already know my smart ass would ruin the experience.
Go watch the commentary on The Patriot by Brandon F.
Techically The Patriot is not a Mel Gibson film. Sure he starred in it, but he didn't direct it or write it and he didn't have the same role/influence in it as he did in Braveheart. I do agree it's FAR worse than Braveheart.
That was a moving speach at the end!
We didn't need to see Wallace and a kid, but I would argue we needed to see his father. This movie is very much about fathers and sons- we see the relationships between Gleeson's character and his father, between Longshanks and his son, Robert and his father... gotta see Billy Boy's deal too.
it's pretty outrageous but your porn joke making more sense and sensibility as a better established scene allowed me to forgive a lot.
I remember when I was a kid and my history teacher actually praised Braveheart because it brought up characters nobody would have ever even heard of or cared to read about (the commonfolk) if iot wasn't for the movie even though it wasn't all that accurate.
say what you want about any of the rest of this, but Nicola Sturgeon and Badass, are not words that belong in the same sentence.
Music is Age Of Empires 2 : The Conquerors
The guy with the tats gave me a ghost tour in New Orleans. He was pretty hammered towards the end. Good fun.
Princess Isabelle has another role in the story other than to warn Wallace of Longshanks' attack. She gets revenge at Longshanks, while he's paralyzed, unable to speak, and dying, by telling him that she's pregnant with Wallace's child. She pretty much tells Longshanks' bloodline has been displaced, and that she will overthrow his son after he's gone. If any of that actually happened, that would've led to an interesting retelling of Christopher Marlowe's Edward II. In that play, Edward III punishes his mother and her lover for killing his father. In another universe, how would Edward III react to the revelation of being Wallace's secret offspring? Of course, I know that Isabelle never had a relationship with Wallace, and she was a child when she got married to Edward. Still, it's a interesting alternate take on history. If it were a pure fantasy retelling of Wallace's story, then a retelling of Marlowe's Edward II as a sequel would've been compelling to see.
I disagree with your assessment on Wallace's childhood scenes taking to long. I rather like the way they were paced and filmed. It suits the needs of the story well for me. Still, I can see that you wanted to have a closer retelling of Wallace's actual story, it would probably need to begin when Wallace was much older.
Interestingly, Kubrick, who directed Spartacus, felt that the script's take on Spartacus was bad because it didn't include Spartacus' flaws or portray why he made the tactical mistakes he made. That corresponds with your view of Wallace. I personally like the films' portrayals of Spartacus and Wallace. If more accurate films were made, than Wallace's and Spartacus' historical flaws should be explored.
As for Edward II's portrayal... Even though he's portrayed as a snooty, self-important wimp, I still empathized with his character and felt bad for him. That's a testament to Peter Hanley's portrayal of Prince Edward, since his performance gave the character a lot nuances the script version probably didn't have. I felt bad for Prince Edward when his father beat him up for making mistakes, or when his father threw his boyfriend, the only person who seemed to love him, out the window. I didn't like how he treats Princess Isabelle, but I did sympathize with what he was dealing with.
If an historical accurate film about Wallace's rebellion against England was ever made, I can see you giving advice on how it would be done, Atun-Shei. It would have to be a medieval epic that properly captures the grittiness and the tactics of that period on film.
People talk about how great a revenge it is for Princess Isabelle to commit paternity fraud against Edward II, but that falls apart when you think about it. It would mean William Wallace's only child would be raised by his enemies and grow up to be the kind of man Wallace would have hated.
This was very well done
40:43 What's the music from that remaking segment?
Atun-Shei films is my second best TH-cam channel, just behind Pero Eso Es Otra Historia and his brother Agujeros de Guion. I recommend you Pero Eso Es Otra Historia, a history channel which resumes that entire history of humanity chronologically.
12:09-12:14
I hope and pray to god that you will never allow anyone to use these lines out of context.
(Years later when you become the next Steven Spielberg)
“Gentlemen the film is finally done! Now we can release the greatest battle scene the world has ever seen”
“Yeah that’s all fine and good, but would you mind explaining what this quote means....”
(Your brain) “oh fuck” (12:09-12:14)
“Uh that was me describing the battle of the bastards in game of thrones I swear!”
“I only poopoo farted for the good of the production”
Braveheart was my father’s favorite movie before he passed, Now it’s one of mine.
They did a good job in Henry showing the actual battle, the Mudd was the main factor and the way the Welsh long Bowman used ther mallets when The French got close and won the battle and kept england from eventually getting invaded was perfect
Sir, what is your opinion on battles in shows like "Vikings" and "The Last Kingdom?"
"B(t)rave(sty)heart" - there, fixed. Regarding Gibson's 'serviceable' performance, that's a fair assessment assuming the service is a writ to be taken before the magistrate in the shire where he resides and so forth...
As a Englishman brave heart feels like a punch to the balls
I hate to be one of those commenters, but what's the song at 44:00? For the life of me I cannot place the name
Kind of wish the bridge battle had been, at you know... a bridge. It is a really cool story and would have been visually stunning.