The Sources Behind Braveheart

Perhaps Scotland’s best-known folk-hero is William Wallace, the ultimate patriot. However, very little is actually known about the historical William Wallace. In 1995, the film Braveheart was released claiming to tell the story of William Wallace. The film was very successful and won a number of Academy Awards but how close to the truth was it? What sources did the author use for information and how does his story relate to historical sources, literary sources and legends about Wallace? To answer these questions it is necessary to take scenes from the film and relate them to the available sources.

Historically, the film gets off to a very bad start proclaiming that the year was 1280 and that Edward I of England had taken the throne of Scotland following the death of the king (Alexander III). This is of course wildly inaccurate. In 1280, Alexander III was still alive and actually still had two sons living[1]. It shows the young William[2] growing up in a Scotland governed by English troops and constantly at war. Again this is very wrong, in 1280, there had been no war between Scotland and England since 1217 and indeed ‘The two centuries between the death of Malcolm Canmore in 1093 and the ominous intervention of the ageing and demonic Edward I in the 1290s form the most peaceful period in the whole history of relations between Britain’s two largest kingdoms.’[3] This clearly shows the setting of the film to be wrong and there are no sources that support this. The film also grossly oversimplifies the events leading up to Edward’s takeover. It seems to indicate that Alexander died and Edward took over. What had actually happened was that Alexander died leaving his granddaughter Margaret Maid of Norway as heir, his two sons having died in 1281 and 1284 respectively.[4] When Margaret died en route, there was a great legal competition in Scotland known as the “Great Cause” in which thirteen potential claimants emerged. Edward of England was possibly invited to adjudicate in the case by one or other of the competitors but no one is really sure.[5] Edward had tried to make the Scots prove that he wasn’t their rightful overlord but eventually settled for picking a claimant that would swear fealty to him, he chose John Balliol. Edward then started placing unreasonable demands of Balliol and interfering with Scots law. Eventually, Balliol had had enough and in 1295, signed a treaty with France.[6] It was at this point that Edward invaded and took control for himself. This is completely missed out from the film although after the battle of Stirling, the Balliol family are trying to press their case.

An interesting occurrence early in the film shows William and his friend Hamish playing soldiers by throwing rocks at animal skulls and imagining them to be English soldiers. William is shown to have some skill at throwing stones; possibly it is supposed to show that even as a young boy he had a keen mind. This makes him an “Odysseus” like character as opposed to the muscular Hamish who is more straightforward like Ajax or Achilles. This idea is actually supported by the sixteenth century historian John Mair who says “like Hannibal or Ulysses he understood to draw up an army in order of battle”[7]

The film describes Wallace’s father as “a commoner with his own lands”[8] Again, this is simply untrue; Wallace’s father was Sir Malcolm Wallace, a low level knight from Elderslie near present day Paisley.[9] This shows the setting for the film to be very wrong as it places William in a small peasant hovel in some Highland glen whereas he should be in a relatively comfortable manor/castle in the Lowlands. The real mistake the filmmakers made was putting all the Scots in kilts. Firstly, under no circumstances would a lowlander have worn a kilt. Secondly, in 1297, no Highlander would have either since there are no records of a kilt or plaid before the late fifteenth century. The clothing of a medieval Highlander can be clearly seen in the Carlisle Charter of 1315[10] and bears little resemblance to a kilt or plaid. For the battle scenes, the main characters are shown with their faces painted with woad. This is a custom normally associated with the Picts which, in recent years has been challenged and is now viewed as a Victorian myth. If woad was not seen on the Picts, it certainly would not have been seen on fourteenth century soldiers.

There are several instances in the film when there is reference to Scotland having been under English control for a long time, the first is when Wallace is parleying with the English envoy before the battle of Stirling; he says, “Here are Scotland's terms. Lower your flags, and march straight back to England, stopping at every home to beg forgiveness for 100 years of theft, rape, and murder.”[11] Later on, Wallace is talking with Bruce about leading the Scots, Wallace says “If we win, well then we'll have what none of us have ever had before: a country of our own.”[12] These are both entirely false statements as Scotland had been independent until the year 1296 when Edward had invaded. However, this idea of long-term war with England is probably derived from Blind Harry’s Wallace an epic poem written in the late fifteenth century. By Blind Harry’s time, Scotland and England had been at war almost constantly since the time of Wallace, with Scotland usually coming off worse. It is also thought that Blind Harry’s work was a reaction to the overly pro-English stance of the unpopular king James III.[13] The period in which Braveheart was written also needs to be taken into account. In the early 1990’s, nationalism was growing in Scotland and there were calls for a devolved parliament for Scotland (delivered in 1997). There are those who view the period of unity from 1707 onwards as Scotland being oppressed by England. Braveheart was also written by an American and so the film reflects American views of England. Fiona Watson is quoted as saying that there is a real danger in trying to transport ‘modern’ political issues whether from the 1990’s or indeed the 1470’s back to the thirteenth century when the political situation was much, much different.[14]
Other aspects of the story taken principally from Blind Harry are the women in Wallace’s life. The first is Murron, in the film his childhood sweetheart who is murdered by the English sheriff Heselrig. In blind Harry, she is called Marion but is still killed by Heselrig[15]. The other lady in Braveheart is Isabella, Princess of Wales. In the film, Isabella falls in love with Wallace as her own husband is gay and in the end we are led to believe that she is having his child. This is utterly impossible as at the time the film shows them meeting, Isabella would only have been six years old [16]and even by the time Wallace died she was only fourteen. Isabella also did not marry Edward of Caernarfon until 1308[17] by which point Wallace was dead. In Blind Harry, it is not the wife of Edward II who meets Wallace but the wife of Edward I. In the poem it says “Then Wallace did a mighty passion feel; He her embraced and kissed, but did no more: The like to South’ron he ne’er did before.[18] This scene is also complete fiction as Edward I’s wife, Eleanor of Castille had died in 1290 and he did not remarry again until 1299.[19]
Braveheart attracted a lot of criticism for its portrayal of Prince Edward (The Future Edward II) as being very effeminate and homosexual. There is, however considerable evidence to back this up. The Chronicler Froissart, writing some sixty years later, describes the execution of one of Edward’s favourites, Hugh Despencer. He says that Hugh was castrated “because he was held to be a heretic, and guilty of unnatural practices, even with the King whose affections he had alienated from the Queen.”[20] The film captures Edward’s lavishing attention of his favourites and ignoring his wife quite well.

The recurring theme of the film is that of freedom and the struggle against a superior foe. The sentiments for freedom are expressed in several contemporary sources. For example, the Chronicle of Walter of Guisborough, an English writer of the period describes Wallace before the battle of Stirling Bridge as saying, “we have not come here for the sake of peace but we are prepared for war to avenge ourselves and free our kingdom.”[21] This attitude can be seen in the film where Wallace disrupts the negotiations before the battle of Stirling. This document is interesting as it is from an English chronicler and yet still gives Wallace this noble desire for freedom. Another document of roughly the same period is the Declaration of Arbroath, signed by the nobility of Scotland in 1320. The Declaration declares that “as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom -- for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.”[22] This statement, used as a rallying call for nationalists for many years, clearly shows that there was a desire within Scotland for freedom.
A part of the film that caused possibly more comment than any other was the first battle scene. The engagement fought near Stirling on September 11 1297 has passed into history as the Battle of Stirling Bridge. And yet for some reason, the filmmakers left the bridge out of the battle scene for the film despite the fact that it played a major role in the Scottish strategy. The Bridge is mentioned in Blind Harry, it is mentioned in the Chronicle of Walter of Guisborough, it even appears on the town seal of Stirling[23] and yet it was not featured in the film. This ensured that the battle itself bore little resemblance to the historical battle. One source says that a deficit in the budget caused the film-makers to leave the bridge out. The film also does not show Andrew Murray, Wallace’s joint commander at Stirling Bridge and the man who some think was actually the man behind the Scot’s strategy but who was badly wounded in the battle and died before he could have any further effect.[24] It is interesting to note that this is a general trend in many sources; Wallace is remembered as a patriotic hero while Murray is forgotten. Certainly, blind Harry makes no mention of him and Bower’s Scotichronicon only makes reference to him as a Scottish noble casualty.[25]

A nicely executed part of the film comes after the battle of Falkirk when the growth of Wallace’s legend is seen. Men are shown discussing Wallace’s deeds with one person saying he killed fifty, another saying 100 while another still claiming that Wallace cut through the English like “Moses through the Red Sea.”[26] It was these sorts of out of proportion tales that Blind Harry must have heard about Wallace while he was writing his tale.
Virtually every part of Scotland has laid claim to William Wallace and there are a huge number of place names associated with him and his legend. A section in the back of the recent translation of Blind Harry lists eighty three separate sites named after him.[27] An interesting one is “Wallace’s Putting Stone” which can be found near Galashiels in Selkirkshire.[28] Could the scene with Wallace and Hamish throwing large rocks be a reference to this?
An interesting character in Braveheart is that of Robert the Bruce, a man who has passed into legend as Scotland’s greatest king. In the film, he is shown in a very negative light as a figure initially out to gain for himself and his family. This meant at times swearing allegiance to England. In the film, this duplicitous behaviour reaches its climax when Bruce, despite swearing to Wallace that he would join him at Falkirk, fights on the English side instead. There is a very poignant scene where Wallace pulls the great-helm from Bruce’s head and when he sees his face virtually collapses and loses the will to fight on. In the film, it is this encounter that causes Bruce to switch back to the Scottish side. It is true that the Bruces had supported Edward when he invaded Scotland in 1296. While this may seem like a betrayal of the Scottish people, it is important to remember that the man on the Scottish throne at the time was John Balliol, the man who had been awarded the throne over the Bruce claim. Barron says that the Bruce family had been reluctant to give homage to Balliol and that the way they acted up until the invasion was consistently anti-Balliol as they hoped to gain the throne once Balliol was deposed. He says there would have been no point in the Bruce family fighting to secure Balliol on the throne, as victory would only have decreased their chances of becoming kings.[29]

There is mixed evidence for Robert actually being at the Battle of Falkirk. The Chronicle of Hemingburgh, an Englishman records that in 1298, while Wallace and his army were at Falkirk, the Earl of Carrick (i.e. Robert the Bruce) held the West of Scotland for the Scots.[30] However, both Blind Harry and Bower place Bruce at Falkirk and on the English side where he is shamed by Wallace into a change of heart. In all likelihood this means that Bruce was not at Falkirk as the English Chronicler was writing at the time and Bower and Harry were writing at least 100 years after the event.

In the final scene of the film, Bruce is shown going to have his throne endorsed by an English general. This never happened, Bruce seized the throne on his own initiative in 1306 and was not officially acknowledged by the English until 1328 with the treaty of Northampton[31]. Bruce then announces to his assembled men “You have bled with Wallace, now bleed with me.”[32] This line is very reminiscent of Robert Burns’ poem Scots Wha Hae which begins with the line “Scots wha hae wi’ Wallace bled, Scots wham Bruce has aften led.”[33] It can be debated what battle the final scene is supposed to show. The final line of the film says: “In the year of our Lord 1314, patriots of Scotland, starving and outnumbered, charged the fields at Bannockburn. They fought like warrior poets. They fought like Scotsmen. And won their freedom.”[34] Indicating that it is Bannockburn. However, Edward II was present at Bannockburn and is not in the film battle. Also, Bannockburn was nine years after Wallace’s death while the battle in the film seems to be almost immediately afterwards.

As a piece of film-making, Braveheart is a very good film and deserved to be successful. Unfortunately, it billed itself as a “True Story”[35] and yet comes nowhere close to being accurate and indeed the writer himself says that he was not really trying to stick to facts. In an interview, he said “There were times when I tried to be a fair historian, but life is not all about balance, it’s about passion, and this story raised my passions.”[36] Randall Wallace therefore used the legend of Wallace as the basis for his film. Ferguson argues that writing a “biography of William Wallace from historical sources only distinct from traditional ones is like trying to restore a very old portrait which several painters have tried to improve.”[37] Meaning that often, the truth is so concealed behind what has come later that no one is sure what the truth is. It would appear that Braveheart is a very good example of this difficulty. In conclusion, Braveheart owes a lot more to its literary and legendary sources than it does to genuine historical fact.

Bibliography

Books

The Dictionary of National Biography (1899 London)
ME3417 handbook

E Macleod-Barron The Scottish War of Independence (1934 Inverness)
R. Bartlett England Under the Anglo-Norman and Angevin Kings (2000)
W. Bower Scotichronicon (1991 Aberdeen)
C. Brown The Second Scottish Wars of Independence (2002 Stroud)
Hamilton, W. Blind Harry’s Wallace (1998 Edinburgh)
J. Jolliffe Froissart’s Chronicles (1967 London)
N. MacDougall An Antidote to the English (2001 East Linton)
G. MacNeill and H. MacQueen Atlas of Scottish History (1996 Edinburgh)
G. Morton William Wallace Man and Myth (2001 Stroud)
P. Traquair Freedom’s Sword (1998, London)
R. Wallace Braveheart (1995 London)

[1] G. MacNeill and H. MacQueen Atlas of Scottish History (1996 Edinburgh) pg 91
[2] It is thought that Wallace was born circa 1274: Hamilton, W. Blind Harry’s Wallace (1998 Edinburgh) Pg 226
[3] R. Bartlett England Under the Anglo-Norman and Angevin Kings (2000) pg 79.
[4] G. MacNeill and H. MacQueen Atlas of Scottish History pg 91
[5] P. Traquair Freedom’s Sword (1998, London) pg 23.
[6] N. MacDougall An Antidote to the English (2001 East Linton) pg 18.
[7] Quoted in G. Morton William Wallace Man and Myth (2001 Stroud) pg 24.
[8] Braveheart Script taken from http://members.tripod.com/~TroubleCat/Braveheart/script.html
[9] A. Mackay in The Dictionary of National Biography (1899 London) pg 106.
[10] C. Brown The Second Scottish Wars of Independence (2002 Stroud) Pg 20.
[11] http://members.tripod.com/~TroubleCat/Braveheart/script.html
[12] Ibid
[13] Hamilton, W. Blind Harry’s Wallace In the introduction by E. King pg XXVIII
[14] F. Watson quoted in G. Morton William Wallace Man and Myth pg 150
[15] Blind Harry’s Wallace pg 70.
[16] http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jamesdow/s077/f188271.htm
[17] http://www.britannia.com/history/monarchs/mon31.html
[18] Ibid pg 133.
[19] Information taken from http://www.britannia.com/history/monarchs/mon30.html
[20] J. Jolliffe Froissart’s Chronicles (1967 London) pg 20.
[21] Taken from the ME3417 handbook.
[22] Ibid
[23] Blind Harry’s Wallace pg XXX
[24] G. Morton William Wallace Man and Myth pg 32.
[25] W. Bower Scotichronicon (1991 Aberdeen) Pg 87
[26] http://members.tripod.com/~TroubleCat/Braveheart/script.html
[27] Blind Harry’s Wallace pg 224
[28] Passim
[29] E Macleod-Barron The Scottish War of Independence (1934 Inverness) Pg 114-18
[30] Ibid Pg 122.
[31] C. Brown The Second Scottish Wars of Independence pg 22-3
[32] http://members.tripod.com/~TroubleCat/Braveheart/script.html
[33] Text of poem taken from: http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/Alley/5443/bann7.htm
[34] http://members.tripod.com/~TroubleCat/Braveheart/script.html
[35] R. Wallace Braveheart (1995 London) On the back cover.
[36] Quoted in G. Morton William Wallace Man and Myth pg 144
[37] Quoted in Ibid pg 62.