[MrJohnDClare]

The film Braveheart tells the story of William Wallace.
You can see one of its most famous scenes here.
(though you need to know that it bears no relation to reality whatsoever!)

What do YOU think of William Wallace?
And what do YOU think of the film Braveheart?

Links that will help you include:

• Scottishpeople singing: O Flower of Scotland.
  
• English people singing the National Anthem.
  
• The Yahoo! Ten most historically inaccurate movies list (see here and here for lists of historical inaccuracies.)
  
• The trailer to Braveheart
  
• The death of Wallace (warning - violent and distressing scenes)
  
• A fantasy cartoon: How Braveheart should have ended .
  
• See here to hear one young person's thoughts about Scotland.

[Democracy]

Well, the film is a stellar representation of self determination and William Wallace is the figurehead for this. The film reminds viewers that 'self determination' is worth fighting for. For that, I respect the guy. 'Love thy country' and all that.

[Paul92]

Personally think that William Wllace is a hero, after all, it was the English who were the aggressors, Wallace was just defending himself and his country against a form of medieval imperialism!
Should say that I live in England and was born here, but my Dad is Scottish and I've always felt just as if not more Scottish, it embarasses me to think of what England has done in the past.
Oh and I also get so annoyed when reading sources in class which mention the ENGLISH victory in the Crimea or the ENGLISH defence at Rourkes Drift, Makes me want to scream!!

This post has been edited by Paul92: 20 March 2009 - 06:56 PM

[Snorri]

Braveheart annoys me on the huge lack of historical accuracy.

Paul92, on Mar 19 2009, 10:58 PM, said:

Oh and I also get so annoyed when reading sources in class which mention the ENGLISH victory in the Crimea or the ENGLISH defence at Rourkes Drift, Makes me want to scream!!

Crimea I am with you (93rd Highlanders etc) but Rorke's Drift was an English victory.

[Cyfer]

In my opinion, it is both good and bad (someone please find a word for that, it is starting to annoy me saying that all the time ) , bad on historical terms, but good in entertainment purposes (although that is probably irrelevant), and that it shows, like Democracy said, as a figurehead (at least it got that right), and that finally I've found an English film where the English are the 'baddies'

~Cyfer/Cipher

[Katy Benson]

In the film the English were the baddies but actually, Edward the first and all the royals and knights in England at the time were descended from the French Normans who took over England. So maybe the French were the real baddies?

[Cyfer]

Katy Benson, on Jun 5 2009, 09:45 AM, said:

In the film the English were the baddies but actually, Edward the first and all the royals and knights in England at the time were descended from the French Normans who took over England. So maybe the French were the real baddies?

Good point but monarchical bloodlines are so intermixed with other countries (for peace purposes) that Edward was probably the result of several generations of European royalty.

~Cyfer/Cipher

[Katy Benson]

Cyfer, on Jun 5 2009, 04:37 PM, said:

Katy Benson, on Jun 5 2009, 09:45 AM, said:

In the film the English were the baddies but actually, Edward the first and all the royals and knights in England at the time were descended from the French Normans who took over England. So maybe the French were the real baddies?

Good point but monarchical bloodlines are so intermixed with other countries (for peace purposes) that Edward was probably the result of several generations of European royalty.

~Cyfer/Cipher

That's true although I think the Normans mixed much with French royalty when in France, I read a little about them and they were originally Vikings who were allowed to stay in that area of France (Normandy) in order to stop other Viking s from sailing up the river Seine and into Paris. I don't think they were regarded very well by the french or European royalty until after conquering England, so maybe wouldn't have mixed that much with royal bloodlines.

[glitterglitter]

Quote:

[*][size=1]Scottishpeople singing: O Flower of Scotland.

Just a wee reminder that "Flower of Scotland' does not refer to William Wallace or any of his battles, but to the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314 led by Robert the Buce. The 'Edward's army' referred to was that of Edward II.

I believe William Wallace to be a very important figure in Scots history because he (as I think others mentioned) embodied the spirit of nationalism and rebellion against Edward I's recent subjugation of the Scots in a time of constitutional crisis. William Wallace effectively started the (eventually successful) Scottish Wars of Independence and changed the course of our history. I also believe that Wallace was a far more genuine character than the later Robert the Bruce in that I feel he was fighting for Scotland rather than personal gain (unlike Bruce).

Although Braveheart does help people identify with the spirt of the time, its inaccuracies are infuriating and unnecessary. Students, tourists, EVERYONE has this vision of a big, hairy Highlander whereas he was of course a Lowlander who probably dressed more like an English knight than anything else!!!!!

[MrJohnDClare]

The teachers on the Teachers' forum have just been discussing this article - rude, but hilarious.

[mr fox]

Snorri, on Jun 1 2009, 07:48 PM, said:

Rorke's Drift was an English victory.

I think you will find the 2nd Battalion, 24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment of Foot had a substantial number of WELSH soldiers, also I think it is also debateable to call it a 'Victory'.

[MrJohnDClare]

mr fox, on Jun 23 2009, 10:14 AM, said:

I think you will find the 2nd Battalion, 24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment of Foot had a substantial number of WELSH soldiers, also I think it is also debateable to call it a 'Victory'.

About a quarter of the hundred-or-so soldiers were Welsh, and regiment was NOT a Welsh regiment (as it later became) and they most certaonly did NOT sing 'Men of Harlech' as shown the the film Zulu.
They were an English Regiment, which had recruited some soldiers from Wales.

Having said that, can I reind people that this is a thread about BRAVEHEART!!!
So far, we seem to have discussed everything but!

[Snorri]

mr fox, on Jun 23 2009, 10:14 AM, said:

Snorri, on Jun 1 2009, 07:48 PM, said:

Rorke's Drift was an English victory.

I think you will find the 2nd Battalion, 24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment of Foot had a substantial number of WELSH soldiers, also I think it is also debateable to call it a 'Victory'.

There were only 14 Welsh soldiers in B Company, 24th Foot and in the Battalion as a whole, only 11% of the soldiers were Welshmen.

I think it was a victory in that the mission stationed was held by British forces and the 'enemy' were driven back and did not attempt to re-attack.

[MrJohnDClare]

Snorri, on Jun 23 2009, 09:35 PM, said:

mr fox, on Jun 23 2009, 10:14 AM, said:

Snorri, on Jun 1 2009, 07:48 PM, said:

Rorke's Drift was an English victory.

I think you will find the 2nd Battalion, 24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment of Foot had a substantial number of WELSH soldiers, also I think it is also debateable to call it a 'Victory'.

There were only 14 Welsh soldiers in B Company, 24th Foot and in the Battalion as a whole, only 11% of the soldiers were Welshmen.

I think it was a victory in that the mission stationed was held by British forces and the 'enemy' were driven back and did not attempt to re-attack.

All this is very exciting but I STILL wish we were actually talking about Braveheart!

[Foley]

I hate to post off topic but one part says this is for history only, another part says that it is for all subjects assistance and then there are some topics like this that are just general? Confused