Braveheart was on TV this weekend, so of course I watched it. Now, I think it’s a pretty enjoyable movie despite its glaring historical inaccuracies. My personal favorite is that the Battle of Stirling Bridge doesn’t have a bridge in it. I’m not asking for the world here, but the bridge is pretty important. It’s like having the Invasion of Normandy without the beach landing.
Anyway, something has always bothered me about the movie (other than the lack of Stirling Bridge). OK, according to the movie, William Wallace had a torrid love affair with the Queen of England (and sired the future English kings, my second favorite historical inaccuracy of the movie). Edward the Longshanks’s son is a ninny, and even his wife accurately points out that when Edward dies, she will be the real ruler of England. Given all of that, why does William insist on continuing his guerrilla war?* Seriously, just wait for Edward to die. Then his paramour takes the throne and grants Scotland its freedom. He can’t negotiate Scottish freedom from his own lover?
But no, he has to keep up the war and instead he gets disemboweled. Let that be a lesson kids. Sometimes, it’s good to negotiate.
*Ed. Note - Incidentally, this was kind of the plan in real life. Once Edward I died, his son took the throne. His portrayal in Braveheart is unfortunately quite accurate. Given Edward II's rather predictable weakness after his father's death, Robert Bruce attacked him pretty much right away to earn Scottish independence. Wait until the moron takes power. Why fight a war against a smart, capable guy when his successor looks to be a total incompetent?
Another real-life tidbit. Queen Isabella would have an affair, only with an English Baron named Roger Mortimer (not William Wallace). They lead an insurrection and murdered Edward II, placing her child on the throne. Edward III, once he came of age, wised up, executed Mortimer, exiled his mother to France, and ruled England for fifty years during an era marred by the Hundred Years War and the Bubonic Plague.
5 comments:
Is that what Bin Laden was thinking during the Clinton years? HAHAHAHA
You missed the entire point of the movie. Only the Poseur could watch a movie about love, courage, honor, freedom, and country and then fault it for the lack of a bridge and a poor grand strategy. The "sit and wait for the dumbass" strategy would have made a piss-poor movie. By the way, the bridge was behind the camera. Duh. If you want historical accuracy watch the discovery channel. For comedy, drama, damn good battle scenes, and one of the best movies ever made, watch Braveheart.
Love,
Matt
Well, in that case, courage is stupid. Longshanks was dying. How hard is it to make a free nation with no bloodshed by simply waiting for the old bastard to kick the bucket? And that would get us freedom and country. OK, it would be lacking in honor, but no one's perfect.
And the battle was on the bridge. It collapsed. The Brits died. The Scottish won.
Honestly, I think a movie with Queen Isabella as a villain would be kind of cool. Braveheart II.
NERD!
Over the weekend I saw a preview for a movie that's being made about the Vikings and Leif Ericksson coming to North America. They kill all the (completely innocent and peacefully treehugging) Indians, BUT they leave a kid behind, who grows up with the Indians and is then "between two worlds" when the Vikings come back. Awesome, now another generation of Americans will think they know something about a historical event just because they saw a movie about it.
Post a Comment