best and worst movie

Site Issues 2005 Archive Room
#21

I already know who he is, and I knew before I saw the film. BTW, he spent a little time in Tullock Castle near Dingwall; a little fact most people are not aware of. But how was the movie Braveheart innacurate about the historical events regarding Wallace? That’s my question.
[/quote]

It’s covered at length in that link - especially those events nearer the start of the film - e.g. who he is in a detailed sense. Where he came from. His background. His family. His motivations. The politics of the time (well worth reading… quite a chain of events!).

The problem with Hollywood is that your hero has to sell and sell well. Which all too often means the truth doesn’t sell quite so well.[/quote]

Well said that man. The problem with Braveheart is not the movie of itself, its the total historical innacuracy of it all. William Wallace did not live in a mud hut in the Highlands. He never wore a damn kilt and certainly didnt paint his face or any other part blue. Where was the bridge in the battle of Stirling Bridge? That was absolutely pivotal to the victory.

Rant grrr mumble vent fume![/quote]

Sounds like we may be near neighbours Firefly, depending on just how far North you are :slight_smile:
2nd of Foot, to answer your question, it was six ells long, with a Scottish ell being a little over a yard, and about 2 ells wide.
As worn by a highlander it might be his only garment, or worn over a long-tailed shirt,
The excess material, nowadays represented in a Pipe band’s Plaid, worn over the shoulder, could be pulled over the head as well as wrapped around the body to for a sleeping bag-cum-blanket.
In wet weather it was often covered in clay, if any could be found, to improve it’s waterproofing qualities.
Held in place only with a belt, it could be removed quickly, and it wasn’t unknown for highlanders to do just that in battle, and attack naked, particularly when facing “civilised” English troops, since it apparently put the fear of God into them :slight_smile:
Possibly a hangover from the similar viking habit of “going berserk” in the heat of battle.
Berserk means without a shirt, with the words having similar echoes in Northern dialects until recently.
I’m sure you know the Northern English word “bar” meaning without, as in Ilkley Moor bar t’at (without a hat), and the Robert Burns poem Tam o’Shanter, featuring the young witch he calls Cutty Sark, or short shirt.

(Edited for spelling error)

#22

so ironman, what is your favourite movie?

#23

willy wonka and the chocolate factory :stuck_out_tongue: i joke, plz dont take it seriously :wink:

#24

I already know who he is, and I knew before I saw the film. BTW, he spent a little time in Tullock Castle near Dingwall; a little fact most people are not aware of. But how was the movie Braveheart innacurate about the historical events regarding Wallace? That’s my question.
[/quote]

It’s covered at length in that link - especially those events nearer the start of the film - e.g. who he is in a detailed sense. Where he came from. His background. His family. His motivations. The politics of the time (well worth reading… quite a chain of events!).

The problem with Hollywood is that your hero has to sell and sell well. Which all too often means the truth doesn’t sell quite so well.[/quote]

The site you mention is on the fringe. It provides a history of William Wallace’s death that is contrary to that of the world’s historians and the world’s higher education institutions. It is a site designed for inflamatory attention, and it is false information. Believe it if you will.

If you chose to live your life believing fringe site banter rather than that of those who have been educated by Oxford, Cambridge, Yale, Harvard, and Milsaps, be my guest. Just be aware that you have fallen into Tom Foolery, and may have a gullible mind easily deterrred from historical fact by sensationalism.

#25

But it is true the the Scots had a tradtion of painting themselves blue before combat. It is also true that the often went into battle stark raving mad and naked. These were tactics of intimidation. Such tactics wrere also practiced by the Norse (without the blue paint though I believe). For example, the Norse often displayed themselves in the nude before battle, despite the fact that they typically had better armour and better chain mail than their enemies, and became “berzerkers” before their engagement, knawing at their shields, howling like wolves, growling like dogs, and doing a sort of “slam dance”. The idea is to convey to the enemy that you, and your willingness to fight like a raving madman, and even die, is far greater than your opponent’s. For the Norse it was founded in religion, as they believed that dying in battle meant instantaneous addmission into Valhalla, The Scots at that time were among the most motivated of any force in the history of the world. Theirs was a fight for freedom and independance, which throughout history, has proven to be among the greatest of motivators for combat. It may be very well true that William Wallace painted himself blue before combat.

#26

Sir William Wallace was not a peasant, he was a nobleman and most definitely would not paint himself. He would probably fight on horse and with other nobles.

#27

Firstly, it is important to realize that the civilization of the Scots at that time were notably more backward than that of England. The Scots were in comparison dirt poor. Their tactics, traditions, and manners were likewise typically less couthe than that of similar day Englishmen. This is no slight on the Scots, for they are a proud, ingenious, and remarkable people! As history has since proven!

But it is true the the Scots had a tradtion of painting themselves blue before combat. Had the tradition ended 1200 years before, as you stated, it would have been around the 1st-3rd centuries after Christ, and the Scots were known to paint themselves blue in combat with the English as well as with the Romans, who were never able to defeat the ingenious and skilled Scots. It is also true that they often went into battle stark raving mad and naked. These were tactics of intimidation. Such tactics wrere also practiced by the Norse (without the blue paint though I believe). For example, the Norse often displayed themselves in the nude before battle, despite the fact that they typically had better armour and better chain mail than their enemies, and became “berzerkers” before their engagement, knawing at their shields, howling like wolves, growling like dogs, and doing a sort of “slam dance”. The idea is to convey to the enemy that you, and your willingness to fight like a raving madman, and even die, is far greater than your opponent’s. For the Norse it was founded in religion, as they believed that dying in battle meant instantaneous addmission into Valhalla, The Scots at that time were among the most motivated of any force in the history of the world. Theirs was a fight for freedom and independance, which throughout history, has proven to be among the greatest of motivators for combat. It may be very well true that William Wallace painted himself blue before combat.

EDITED TO CORRECT TYPOS

#28

Scotland has never been behind England. I think they had the first university in Scotland before England or at about he same time. Scots society at that time was comparatable to the rest of Europe.

#29

Ironman you are editing your post in front of my eye, each time I look at it changes.

#30

I’m sorry my firend, but that is incorrect. The Scots were as a whole for centuries a lesser “advanced people” than the English. BTW, it may very well be that the Scots painted themselves blue for combat with the English (and the Scots are a people hell-bent on tradition) because it was a very old tradition, and using such an old tradition in combat with the English was like a slap in the face to the English, who saw the Scots deploying a centuries old tactic as a way of saying, “F*ck off you Englishmen! You didn’t own us then and you won’t own us today!” when going into combat against them. This is a powerful display of resiliance and determination that mocked the English upper class and nobility.

#31

He was a Scot.

#32

What is so unconcionable about that? Throughout history many kings fought on foot with their men, side by side. If anyone would do it, a Scot would!

I find it humorous that some of you believe the bater of a fringe website over the establishments of higher education about the history of your own “nation”. Unbelievable. You chose the banter of a web site with no credentials over that of learned men with PhD’s from the highest educational platforms in the world. :shock:

#33

So right you are lad! Well said!

#34

Great post reiver.

#35

http://web.nwe.ufl.edu/~jdouglas/finanal13.html

In many ways, Braveheart is in the tradition of Gibson’s earlier Mad Max
series, except that this time, the “good guys” wear kilts and paint their faces blue with woad in preparation for battle (prompting a colleague’s suggestion that the film should be renamed “Woad Warrior”). The film fails to portray accurately either the period or its people. The historical inaccuracies draw on the worst myths of “tartanism,” a disease against which Scottish historians wage an unceasing battle. The Lowland Scots who made up the majority of Wallace’s followers did not wear kilts; woad was last used by the Picts at least five hundred years before Wallace lived. Braveheart portrays the thirteenth-century Scots as “noble savages,” an image more appropriateto eighteenth and nineteenth century views of the Highlanders than to thirteenth century Lowland
peasants. Wallace himself, who was far more than just a warrior, is portrayed in almost
exclusively military terms.8

  1. Elizabeth Ewan, Review of Braveheart and Rob Roy, published in The American Historical Review, (Washington, D.C.: The American Historical Association, 1995) pp.1219-1221
#36

Firstly, it is important to realize that the civilization of the Scots at that time were notably more backward than that of England. The Scots were in comparison dirt poor. Their tactics, traditions, and manners were likewise typically less couthe than that of similar day Englishmen. This is no slight on the Scots, for they are a proud, ingenious, and remarkable people! As history has since proven!

But it is true the the Scots had a tradtion of painting themselves blue before combat. Had the tradition ended 1200 years before, as you stated, it would have been around the 1st-3rd centuries after Christ, and the Scots were known to paint themselves blue in combat with the English as well as with the Romans, who were never able to defeat the ingenious and skilled Scots. It is also true that they often went into battle stark raving mad and naked. These were tactics of intimidation. Such tactics wrere also practiced by the Norse (without the blue paint though I believe). For example, the Norse often displayed themselves in the nude before battle, despite the fact that they typically had better armour and better chain mail than their enemies, and became “berzerkers” before their engagement, knawing at their shields, howling like wolves, growling like dogs, and doing a sort of “slam dance”. The idea is to convey to the enemy that you, and your willingness to fight like a raving madman, and even die, is far greater than your opponent’s. For the Norse it was founded in religion, as they believed that dying in battle meant instantaneous addmission into Valhalla, The Scots at that time were among the most motivated of any force in the history of the world. Theirs was a fight for freedom and independance, which throughout history, has proven to be among the greatest of motivators for combat. It may be very well true that William Wallace painted himself blue before combat.

EDITED TO CORRECT TYPOS[/quote]

Ironman

I have stood back and read several of your posts in various threads. In some I have stayed out, as I just did not have the knowledge to argue with you on the given point (ballistics/Jet engine technology etc).

However, this time I do feel that I can argue with you as you are now talking about the area where I grew up (Fife) in Central Scotland. And I have often walked some of the battlefields and have always had a keen interest in my local history. Im not saying you have your facts wrong deliberately, but you do seem to have melded a lot of Scots history together. So I will try and give you a short précis of it below:

The Scots didn’t paint themselves blue, I think your find that it was the Picts and as the Scots (a tribe from Ireland) gradually took over the Pictish settlements, the tradition died out, and certainly by the 13th century was no more.

There were 2 types of Scot by Wallaces time, Lowlanders and of course Highlanders (which Wallace was depicted as). Lowlanders never wore the Kilt and certainly never spoke Gaelic either. Also at this time and right up to 1746 the Highlands were a distinct part of Scotland rules by Clan Chiefs and only nominally under the crown.

Now also the Highlands doesn’t mean anything North of Perth. The Highlands did not include the coastal areas which were considered lowland areas, including as far North as Aberdeenshire and Morayshire (not in the highlands).

On to the lowlanders then – you say they were a more backward people and you couldn’t be more wrong, why? Because they were basically the same people as in the North of England. They spoke Lallans or Lowland Scots, which is a dialect of English separate but closely related, Scots nobility owned lands in both countries and the same was true for many English Nobles. In fact the rulers of Scotland were of the same stock as those in England. Wallace is a French name, so is Bruce, so is Robert. The De Brus family were originally from Normandy!

They fought the same way with the same weapons, they also fought guerrilla style as they were often outnumbered but the fact remained that the mounted Knight was still the king of battle. So I hope you realise that they didn’t live in mud huts and paint themselves blue or wear Kilts, and that also Lord Murray who was from the North, was not considered a Highlander.

Try this site:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/scottishhistory/independence/features_independence_wallace.shtml

I think you may find it more enlightening unless you have already dismissed it as well.

#37

I hate Braveheart! :evil:

It offends my Scottish sensibilities.

The nation-state in its current form did not recognise until the Treaty of Westphalia in the 17th century.

Scotland never was one nation. The Picts lived in the east and the Scots (who came from Ireland) lived in the west, known as Dalriada. There were Gaelic Highlanders and the Lowlanders, and throw in a few others like the Doric-speakers who live in the north-east. Most of their time was spent fighting each other, not the English.

The history of the relationship between the Scots and the English is very complicated and based largely around mutual advantage. As well as the famous battles such as Falkirk, Bannockburn and Culloden there are far more interesting diplomatic developments, such as the Union of the Crowns in 1603, when a Scottish king (James VI) succeeded to the English throne as James I and VI. The manouverings of the various Scottish factions in the later Civil War are also highly interesting.

The idea of the English as a homogenous race or nation is also ludicrous, but that is another topic.

Oh, and I can see the Wallace Monument from the hill behind my house! :smiley:

#38

One other snippet - the idea of tartan-swathed Scots is not correct, and the kilt was largely an English invention inspired by the romantic works of Sir Walter Scott. The visit of King George IV to Scotland in 1822 (organised by Sir Walter Scott) saw the emergence of the kilt as a national icon.

Ironically the Dress Act of 1746 had proscribed “Highland wear” in an attempt to prevent future rebellions.

The raising of the Royal Highland Regiment (the Black Watch) in the wake of the first Jacobite rebellion of 1715 is another example of how the Scottish image has developed. The Black Watch were formed from loyal clans and constituted as a regiment in 1739.

#39

William Wallace was indisputably a Lowlander, and as such would certainly never have worn a plaid or kilt.
There was a distinct division of class between the Lowlanders and Highlanders, and while the Highlanders may have been poor peasants, this was most certainly not true of most Lowlanders.
Lowlanders, in fact, made no distinction at this time between Scottish Highlanders and Irish, considering both as excellent troops, but basically as savages, given to wander off home when there was no plunder to be had.
Wallace would also, as I said above, not have painted his face blue.
It’s a complete anachronism, and one which he would have been unlikely to even know about, since the habit had died out hundreds of years earlier.
It wasn’t a continuing tradtion.
He would almost certainly have been mounted in battle, just as Bruce was , moving from schiltron to schiltron to offer encouragement, and for the same reason officers were mounted up until the early 20th century, to give him a clearer view of the battlefield and so his men could see him and know he was still alive.
In addition, the act of being knighted was to be inducted into the cult of Chivalry, the very name of which implies being mounted(from cheval the French for horse)
For this reason, part of the trappings of knighthood, presented at the time of knighting, was a pair of gold spurs, along with the belt signifying the rank of knight.
As for Scotland being more backward than England, I would certainly take issue with that statement.
Inevitably, as a smaller country she lacked some of the wealth of England, but the average Scot had much the same existance as the average English peasant.
Oxford University was founded in the 12th Century, (in the context of this post, Balliol College, the second oldest residential College in the University, was founded in 1263 by Bruce’s opponent for the Scottish Crown), Cambridge University in 1209, with Scotland’s oldest, St. Andrews, in 1413, the third oldest in the UK, and Glasgow in 1451.
Glasgow Cathedral in its present form was coming to completion around the time of Wallace and Bruce, as was St Magnus Cathedral in Kirkwall.
Arbroath Abbey already stood, as did many smaller monastic houses such as Brechin and Ardchattan Priory.
These acted as centres for learning and, indeed the Scots placed a far higher value on education than the Englsih did at this time, and later.
The military and cultural link between Scotland and France known as “The Auld Alliance” was agreed a year or more before the Battle of Stirling Brig.
Poorer Scotland may have been, but not more backward; indeed, with regard to Lowland aristocracy, it’s hard to make any distinction, since many owned land on both sides of the Border.
This was, after all, the pretext for Edward’s claim to the Scottish Crown, that the two claimants for the Scottish Crown, Bruce and Balliol had each done homage to Edward in his role as adjudicator of their claims, thereby accepting Edward as his feudal overlord.
One magnificent result came from all this internecine warfare.
The Declaration of Arbroath.
The first written declaration of a national identity and independence, it is even claimed that the Founding Fathers drew on it in writing the American Declaration of Independence.
Not the product of a backward people.

#40

Thanks reiver, knew someone would have a far better knowledge of the Scottish education than I. :slight_smile: I was unable to talk on the subject with any authority. :oops:

It’s just occurred to me what reiver is, are you a borderer? My father gave me “Steel Bonnet” a number of years ago and I have never gotten round to reading it.

Edited to add the above