ok vinny. Hopefully we can have an intellectual conversation on this without all your usual silliness. lets have a look at this.
Braveheart was a hollywood blockbuster based on the book by randall wallace , a yank , who attempted to recall the events of the late 13th and early 14th century scotland. The idea they got every thing wrong in the film is of course nonsense.
The majority of the film was largely correct , with a few embellishments as you would expect , as the iudea of the film fisrt and foremost was to make money , not give an accurate to the minute detail historical retelling of past events. No different to films on english history .
havent a clue what you ae talking about here.
so lets go through your north britishman article.....
lmfao. John o farrell , former writer for the spitting image series now being passed off as some historical expert and the go to benchmark on braveheart? anyone who write a book with "utterly impartial" in the title deserves contempt and his book chucked i nthe bin where it belongs. moving on....
so your own article states that there is contention wether jus prima noctis , an english law , existed or not. So no proof randall wallce got this wrong.
do you understand this point vinny? Now i cant remember if moray was in the film at this point or not , but the infamous attempt to deny the existence of stirling bridge has long been shot to pieces by historians. The calim was by mainly british and unionist historians was that the battel of stirling bridge either never took place , or took place elsewhere in 1297 because the earliest records of a bridge over the forth at stirling date from the 15th century , some two centuries later.
This of course has been proved to be nonsense. The remains of the wooden bridge over the forth have been discovered by arcaheologists , i mind watching tony robinson and his time team programme pointing out where the wooden stumps of the 1297 bridge over the forth were . So the film was correct.
thats correct , and robert the bruse plays a key part in the film. Dont understand the point? seems like desperate muck rakeing to me .
not quite true. There have been several claims that wallace was from ayrshire , rather than renfrewshire , hence the decrepency over who his father and which wallace family he came from. Its only in recent decades they have largely settled on the fact william wallace was from elderslie in renfrewshire. Seems another pretty pathetic attempt to point score. Remember the film makers were largely relying on myths and legends in scottish folklore , and what few historical records remained werent even scottish , but came largely from norman french .
Much of the stuff written about wallace in scotland was from a guy called blind harry , a bard at the court of the stewart kings who died some 200 years after the death of wallace.
again ambicuous rubbish with a small part truth. There is no evidence he had an uncle called argyle , but there are claims his father did have a brother. As i said , little is known about wallaces family , much of it is specualtion . So another attempt to muck rake , and a pretty poor point that once again has absolutely no validity over the general events of the film and historical accuracy.
Its like me claiming agincourt didnt happen because of the embellishments shakespeare added centuries later. "once more unto the breach dear friends " and all that guff.
rather a confusing and misleading statement here in your scotsman article.
Its unquestioned he is a hero of scottish history. The film portrays him as a lesser son of a lesser noble , so what has the film got wrong?
The isabella of france love story part of the film is unquestionably made up for the box office , and again doesnt detract fro mthe majority of the story.
as for this...
Once again there is no evidence face paint , associated with the picts and other celtic tribes fro mthe roman times ,was in use in the late 13th century in scotland. Another minor irrelevant point which is largely used in the film for theatre.
Dont understand this guff about tartan , its association with highlanders , and the point 500 years too early.
The oldest tartan in the world comes from austria. Its not scottish in origination , but celtic .The oldest tartan found in scotland comes from the scottish lowlands near falkirk , and the tribes of the south west were wearing tartan plaids around the time of wallace. So dont understand the implication that tartan is
1. soley of highlander use , whcih isnt the case. The destinction between the scottish highlands and lowalnds didnt exist in wallaces time. Wallace was a gaelic speaker himself.
2.something of use later in history , which is obviously false implication in this article.
What does one expect though from the scotsman , a paper that has a daily circulation of some 3000 copies in scotland among a nation of 5 half million , such is its ridicule , and barely 4000 online subscriptions.
If you are going to challenge the histroical validity of a film like braveheart vinny , i would chooose yours source material to do so more wisely.
