Help support TMP

"Errors in the film Braveheart" Topic

61 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the Medieval Discussion Message Board

Areas of Interest


8,220 hits since 22 Nov 2006
©1994-2019 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Pages: 1 2 

Dave Crowell22 Nov 2006 5:50 p.m. PST

Please repost this in plain text so we can read it.

And Woad is not that colour. Not even close.

hurcheon22 Nov 2006 6:04 p.m. PST

Errors of fact in the film "Braveheart".

Pointing out the errors in "Braveheart" might be seen as pointless, after all, should we expect anything more from Hollywood. Well the trouble is that the errors are so many and so grievous, ands the legacy of Wallace and the Wars of Independence still have so much meaning to Scots today that I thought it worthwhile to realise just how shoddy and worthless a job Randall Wallace made of the story.

The real story itself is so exciting that I am surprised and a little saddened that such a bad job was done, but it was and I'll try and redress it a bit.

After the death of Alexander III's daughter, the Maid of Norway, there were 13 claimants to the Scots throne, of which two families had a decent claim. These formed the main factions in Scotland. The two factions were
The Comyn family, who supported John Balliol a kinsman who was chosen by Edward I to be rightful King.

The Bruces, who had been heir presumptive before Alexander had any heirs.

There are (at least) three Robert Bruces alive at the same time

Robert de Bruce, the "Old Competitor". Robert Bruce (A):- Father to (B), Grandfather to (C)
Robert Bruce, who didn't want to claim the kingship, Robert Bruce (B):- Son of (A), Father of (C)
Robert Bruce the King, Robert I, Robert Bruce (C):- , Grandson of (A), Son of (B)

John Balliol has the "distinction" in Scot's history of never being referred to as King John, he is always John Balliol, "Toom Tabard" (Empty Shirt), not really a King
The following points and counterpoints are in the
basic order in which they are brought up within the film.

The film opens in 1280. Scotland is at war with itself and Edward of England after the death of the King of Scots when Edward proposes a truce to decide matters. Kilted Scotsman wander hither and yon.

Um, no. It is not until 1286 that Alexander III, King of Scots rides off a cliff to his death, leaving the Kingdom with no heir save Margaret, the Maid of Norway, his three year old granddaughter and daughter of the King of Norway. Alexander even had male heirs after 1280, though they died before Alexander's own death.

The plaid and the kilt are not the dress of the Lowland Scot, and probably not of the Highlander at this time earlier. The dress would appear to be a long tunic with sometimes breeches.

Edward was not invited until 1290 to decide the decision as to which claimant had a better claim to the throne. He had done a similar job earlier in deciding the lordship over the island of Sicily and was seen as an honest broker and had signed treaties guaranteeing Scots independence. Of course Longshanks had other ideas.

William Wallace is shown as a kilted Highlander, the son of a crofter, a man of humble origins

Um, no. William Wallace's father was a knight, probably named Malcolm. Sir Malcolm Wallace was a vassal of the Stewart family, with whom the Wallaces had been associated for over 100 years. Wallace's mother was the daughter of Sir Reginald Craufurd of Loudon, Sheriff of Ayr. Far from humble origins.

Not only that, but the Wallace family were lowlanders, probably living in Elderslie in Renfrewshire, comparatively flat terrain and not the steep sided valley of the film.
Even the great Magnates of Scotland as shown as scrappy 15th Century Highlander in this, instead of the rich and powerful Celtic-Normans they were, as well equipped as the English nobles, or nearly.

Wallace's father is killed in this year of 1280, and the young Wallace is taken in by his uncle Abenazar, sorry, Argyll. This uncle has wallace taught Latin, French and his letters.

Wallace's father was not killed until 1292. Before then Wallace had been educated at Paisley Abbey and in 1292 had been living near Dundee for a while, admittedly with his uncle. A load of boys seem to have been shipped there to have the rough edges knocked off them.

I have no idea where the name Argyll came from. Argyll as a territory was under control of John of Lorn, who supported the Comyn side of the inheritance debate.

Abenazar Argyll makes reference to "Outlawed tunes on outlawed Pipes". He also mentions that the same thing happened for his father, William Wallace's grandfather.

Neither the pipes nor the tunes were outlawed until after the 1745 rebellion. A little while away.
England and Scotland had been at peace within the possible lifetime of Wallace's grandfather. The last battle on Scots soil against a foreigner was in 1263 at Largs when the forces of the Steward defeated the Norsemen of King Haakon.

Wedding of Edward Prince of Wales and Isabelle of France

Isabelle was born in 1292, so to have her as a fully grown woman before the battle of Stirling Bridge (1297) is ludicrous.
She was betrothed to Edward in 1303.
They actually married in 1308, three years after Wallace's execution.

In Edward's council of war Longshanks proposes to settle English nobles in Scotland and grant Scots nobles land in England. To entice the English nobles Edward plans to give them "Jus primae Noctis", the right to sleep with any common woman on the night of her marriage.

The Norman nobility in Scotland, Wales, France and Ireland were already international. This was part of the problem in fact, since part of Edward's claim over Scotland was that the Kings of Scotland held land in England owing him oaths of fealty as vassals for that land. Funnily enough when Philip le Bel of France tried the same argument on Edward for land Edward held as vassal of France that wasn't the same thing. Somehow. One of the settlements in the eventual peace treaty between Scotland and England was to divest nobles of land held abroad.

Not only is the "Jus Primae Noctis" a myth, I don't think anyone even suggested it as a bit of anti-English Propaganda during the wars. It strikes me that this is a nice atroctiy that the makers of thefilm can get past the censors compared to one of the real horros like Berwick where Longshanks slaughtered everybody.

Robert Bruce the Elder.

As stated earlier there were three Robert Bruces. (Not to be confused with a Robert Brux who was a servant of Edward I). Of the three only perhaps the youngest, the King ever had any kind of skin complaint.

It was the Grandfather who maintained the claim to the throne, the middle Bruce resigned it in favour of his son.
The Grandfather died in 1295, the Father in 1304. This makes eithers involvement in later event improbable to say the least.

Peaceful William Wallace who wanted to be a farmer

There was never any sign of this. When his father was killed Wallace was living near Dundee. Soon after wards in Dundee itself he picks a fight, or a fight is picked with him, with an English soldier whom he kills. He is then on the run for most of the rest of his life.

Oh. And even if he was, it wouldn't be a Highland croft

Mirren the crofter's daughter and her death.

Well she was called Marion Braidfute.
She was the daughter of Sir Hugh Braidfute and heiress of the Lamington Estates in Lanarkshire.
Rather than the short romance in the film it is possible that they were together long enough to have a daughter.
And rather than being the subject of a casual rape, she was the subject of th eattentions of the English Sheriff of Lanark, Heselrig, who thought to marry her to his son, so he arranged to have Wallace put out of the way. Marion aided Wallace's escape and was killed for that.

Wallace and the Nunchuks

When William wallace enters the village "unarmed" he pulls out a pair of nuchakus from behind his neck.
Not a cavalry flail
Not a threshing flail (too big)
But honest to goodness nunchakus, both sides even and everything. I know that study is showing more complex trade routes to the orient than was once thought, but NO!

Cowardly English nobles and Wooden Castles.

Much as I hate to say it Longshanks seems to have picked his subordinates reasonably well, and it is unlikely that most would have been happy to be slaughtered like a sheep.
Scotland was well supplied with Stone Castles

Edward's council of war, discussing the threat from Wallace.

Of course the year before John Balliol had been at war with the English, at the same time as Wallace Bruce revolted in the south and Andrew Murray started a revolt in the north.

Wallace the Woad-wearing short-erse

You can argue the point about the height of Wallace, though the sources all give him a good height rather than the diminutive stature of Mr. Gibson but no, there is no evidence of anyone painting their faces. Not a one.

The Battle of Stirling Bridge.

This is Wallace's first stand up battle, and is not referred to by name nor does it look much like the Bridge. This was never a proposed capitulation by the nobles which Wallace rescued with a quick arms delivery and a new tactic.

This was a tactic developed by Wallace and Andrew Murray in advance.
The English army was crossing a narrow bridge which led into a section of boggy hemmed in by a loop of the River Forth.
The English did not get time to deploy when the Scots charged.

The battle as shown in the film is complete mince. If the Scots had tried bottom waving antics in the face of Welsh Archers then the same result as Falkirk would have happened.

Lochlann and Mornay

Lochlann and Mornay: These two standard nobles for the fight scenes are not historical but if they were, the name Mornay seems mildly insulting to Andrew Murray who was nothing like the trimmer Mornay is in the film.

Wallace knighted, the Balliol Clan and the Wallace's support

This may actually have been done by Robert the Bruce.
The Balliol Clan: The Balliol and the Comyns were definately not a Celtic Clan. They were a Norman_french family, whose name comes from the French town of Bailleul-en-Vimeu.John Balliol's mother, Devorgilla, gifted the funds that established Balliol College in Oxford.

And as to the Wallace's family long being supporters of the "Balliol Clan". Wallace fought in the name of King John Balliol, but his family owed fealty to the hereditary High Stewrds of Scotland, the Stewarts, and Wallace's brother Malcom was in service with Robert the Bruce.

Wallace as Guardian.

There is no mention of the letters written by Wallace to former trading partners such as the Hansa stating, in basic terms, that Scotland is open for business again. The full text of one of these Letters was discovered in Hamburg a while back by a Dr. Lappenburg.

"Andrew Murray and William Wallace, Commanders of the Army of Scotland and the community of the same kingdom:

"To the prudent and discreet men and well beloved friends, the Mayors and Commonwealths of Lubeck and Hamburg, greeting and perpetual increase of sincere friendship.

"To us it has been intimated by trustworthy Merchants of the said Kingdom of Scotland that as a mark of your regard, you have been favourable to, counselling and assisting in all matters and transactions relating to us and said merchants, though such good offices may not have been preceded by our desserts, and on that account we are more bound to tender you our thanks and a suitable return.

"This we have willingly engaged orselves to perform towards you, requesting that, in so far as you cause your Merchants to be informed, they will now have safe access to all the ports of the Kingdom of Scotland with their merchandise, as Scotland, thanks be to God has by war been recovered from the power of the English. Farewell. Given at Haddington, in Scotland, this 11th day of October 1297.

"PS. We have, moreover, to request that you would condescend to forward the interests of our Merchants, John Burnet and John Frere, in their business in like manner as you may wish us to act towards your Merchants in their transactions. Farewell."

Wallace and Princess Isabelle and Charity

Didn't happen. There was an attempt to capture the English Queen in York but that was in 1319 to put pressure on Edward II. Anyway, at the time she would have been, what, six years old.

And Wallace was not a Savage, he was, for Scotland, a cultured type.

As to Isabelle handing out Charity in the King's name. Edward I was a charitable sort, if the politics of the situation were suitable.

The Battle of Falkirk and afterwards

The Irish did not desert. The Welsh archers, who were feeling mutinous anyway, only came in when the tide seemed to be turning against the Scots

The Bruce did not fight on the English side. He was in Galloway at that time, He did fight in the name of the English at some times, but this was not one of them.

Afterward Wallace did not wander alone like some Teutcher Mad Max. He had a band of followers including his brother He travelled abroad in the service of Scotland, visiting France and possibly Norway. He may have even fought on the French side against the English.

Wallace and Isabelle

Still didn't happen. Sorry.

Betrayal of Wallace by Bruce's Father and Wallace's execution.

Well, both Bruce's father and grandfather were dead by now
We know who betrayed Wallace, his name was Sir John de Menteith
Wallace was spread to the four corners of England, not Britain. ENGLAND AND BRITIAN AN'T THE SAME THING!

Bruce's submission to Edward II at the Bannockburn

This is total nonsense. By this time the Bruce had been at war with the English solidly for 8 years. His presence at the Bannockburn was because the English garrison of Stirling Castle had agreed to surrender to the Scots if not relieved by a certain date. The English were coming to relieve them so the Bruce fought them on a ground of his choosing.

It was NOT a spur of the moment decision because of the Bruce was shamed into it by the looks of Wallace's old troops and a grubby handkerchief.

Even if it had been how could the Bruce have succeeded charging the English in exactly the same fight that the Wallace kept losing? No. The Bruce used his disciplined schiltrons and his light cavalry in exactly the right way to force the English into boggy terrain from which they had difficulty fighting.

He earned his victory in blood and effort, proving himself the worthy heir of Wallace's troops

Why is all this important?

Because William Wallace was not born with a title he has become, in more modern years, a working-class symbol. People have invested his times with battles that are being fought now, and with meanings that were not appropriate for the time. It might have been easier for the Wallace, a landless man though of landed family, to fight at times than the nobles who had lands to lose.

Also, although the contenders for the throne wanted to see Scotland free, they wanted it with their candidate in charge, and so the battle to stop their opponent was more important. Not noble, but human.Some nobles even joined the English because they were disgusted with the in-fighting in Scotland but it is still wrong to impute 20th/21st theories of class warfare onto the politics of the 13th and 14th Century.

aecurtis Fezian22 Nov 2006 6:26 p.m. PST

"And Woad is not that colour. Not even close."

You would have appreciated the redheaded (flame-red) fellow who appeared at the Texas Renaissance Festival a goodly number of years ago as a "Pict". He donned nowt but an athletic supporter with the main section covered in rabbit fur, and an overall coating of powdered blue carpenter's chalk as "woad".

Hollywood has nothing on Renfairies.


willthepiper22 Nov 2006 6:33 p.m. PST

Good on ya, Hurcheon.

LeiFeng22 Nov 2006 6:39 p.m. PST

did he shout 'freee ….eee…dom' as he was being, erm, what were they doing anyhow? Didn't look nice, nasty English.

louboy0622 Nov 2006 6:40 p.m. PST

well put.

John the OFM22 Nov 2006 7:00 p.m. PST

Allen, was that Groundskeeper Wullie?
"What are ye gawpin' at? It's nae but what God gave me!"

jpattern22 Nov 2006 7:57 p.m. PST

Man, that's a long post! Judge Floro, Hurcheon. Hurcheon, Judge Floro.

jtipp6822 Nov 2006 8:08 p.m. PST

Wow…if someone could only explain Saving Private Ryan to me my holiday weekend will be complete.

DS615122 Nov 2006 9:11 p.m. PST

A very, very long post.
Too much free time perhaps?

LeiFeng22 Nov 2006 9:48 p.m. PST

personally I'm disapointed there was never a sequel to braveheart, what with an Edward the second and a hot poker scene, & Mel's love child, it would rival star wars. And think- the Scots could also blow up a death star, it'd be great.

Personal logo Pictors Studio Sponsoring Member of TMP22 Nov 2006 10:07 p.m. PST

ummmm. . . England never had a death star. Those people in that movie just had British accents, that was probably just a coincidence.

LeiFeng22 Nov 2006 10:13 p.m. PST

all this revisionism is making my head spin. I thought the Scots had cross dimensional powers, like in highlander, but I never did get why Sean Connery had a portugee accent. Just think, if Scotland had colonised the US you'd all be eating deep fried mars bars. The English death star saved us all, until it was blowed up of course.

Patrick FL22 Nov 2006 10:43 p.m. PST

Everyone knows the Engligh Death Star was destroyed during Zeppelin raids during WW1, which explains why Tom Cruise had to save Britain in 1940 with his scientology powered Y wing fighter.

Oddly enough, this movie was the second date I went on with my now wife…

Nice summary, the film makers did not bother much with the facts. Just don't ruin Charlton Heston's "El Cid" for me.

hurcheon22 Nov 2006 11:53 p.m. PST


Luckily for your peace of mind I had already done this some time ago. So the time was spent a couple of years back.

True story, 1995, the SF WorldCon was in Glasgow. "Braveheart" had been shown in the US but not yet in the UK. After a talk on "Scotland in Science Fiction and Fantasy" in which the panel seemed to argue that Scotland, like Wales, Ireland and Brittany (*), deserved only to exist in some pseudo-Celtic twilight we had some Americans come over to "feel our pain" given what they had learned through Braveheart.

Oh dear

(*)What happened to plucky Kernow?

No Name0223 Nov 2006 2:13 a.m. PST


Johnnie the Foreign Bugger23 Nov 2006 2:27 a.m. PST

Hurcheon, thanks thumbs up

Mocaiv23 Nov 2006 2:28 a.m. PST

So I guess you did not like the film then…

hurcheon23 Nov 2006 2:43 a.m. PST


Two things there.

One there is a chap called George MacDonald Fraser. Wrote the Flashman and McAuslan stories and "The Steel Bonnets" about the Border Reivers. He also did the scripts for the Michael York Three Muskeeter films.

He also wrote "The Hollywood history of the World" showing where Hollywood did its work or, if there were slight differences, the feel was in the main correct.

So Hollywood can do history, they didn't here.

The second is, it's actually not that good a film. Really it isn't, so I can't say, "well, the history is bleep but I'll forgive it for the film"

SteveJ23 Nov 2006 3:36 a.m. PST

And wasn't Wallace a Norman?- by antecedent.
Or 'William Le Wallace', to give him his correct title.

reddrabs23 Nov 2006 4:10 a.m. PST

Sadly for most wargamers, the truth is different from our "history" (and I have no wish to argue on what is a historical fact)…

pirates were both victims of a brutal occupation and bloodthirsty criminals with no pity nor mercy

highwaymen were muggers, the type who hangs around corners today

the much vaunted wargaming armies of SS, Mongols, Huns and similar brought genocide, rape and destruction to areas

the colonial armies we move across tables were invaders determined to destroy the culture of the people there



GeoffQRF23 Nov 2006 4:36 a.m. PST

So… Who's to blame?

Poor researchers?
Poor script writers?
Public demand to make 'real history' more 'exciting' for a good film?
Hollywood's demand to make 'real history' more 'exciting' for more box office sales?


Scutatus23 Nov 2006 4:53 a.m. PST

"the much vaunted wargaming armies of SS, Mongols, Huns and similar brought genocide, rape and destruction to areas"

And so did the Romans (Huns) Persians and Europeans (Mongols), Russians, British and Americans (WWII). In fact ANY conquering army in ANY period is prone to genocide, rape and destruction to areas. The fact that the Huns and Mongols and Huns ALSO did it is not extraordinary.

Steve Flanagan23 Nov 2006 5:09 a.m. PST

British and Americans (WWII)

Possibly the most restrained armies in history, so far as raping and pillaging goes. Quire unlike the Red Army or the Free French.

mawaliuk223 Nov 2006 6:57 a.m. PST

My favourite comment on this film is from an old friend:

"As an historical film it is a great Conan movie".

And I think that really captures it. It is great fun to watch as a movie – I love the battle scenes and the bitching in between. Of course it is rubbish as history, but what the heck. It inspired me to read up a bit on the real history, and I am sure it did the same for many others. Entertaining and inspiring a wish for knowledge, what more could you ask of Hollywood?

GeoffQRF23 Nov 2006 7:02 a.m. PST

But do you find that it inspires you to read the history, then get disappointed to learn that history is not like the film you enjoyed so much that it inspired you to read about it?

Doesn't that then take some of the punch away from the film…" yeah, it was fun, but all rubbish… hmm, I feel disappointed/cheated now"

While granted that some license has to be taken with the emotions felt or shown, words actually said, etc surely there should be a (moral?) responsibility to at least tell the facts correct? Isn't there still enough scope in that to allow the underlying moral message/political goal to come across without deliberately (or lazily) altering the historically recorded facts

(Bearing in mind that those facts were noted by the winner, of course)

SteveJ23 Nov 2006 7:14 a.m. PST

I think it just 'inspires' the kind of ill-informed flag-waving that we can do without.

Porkmann23 Nov 2006 7:18 a.m. PST

Did the Pope like it?

hurcheon23 Nov 2006 7:37 a.m. PST

Well actually a lot of the surviving documents came from the eventual loser, i.e. England.

As to the Pope. Don't think anyone knows but his predecessor was eventually convinced to lift his Excommunication of Scotland thanks to the Declaration of Arbrotah 1320.

So that was nice.

hurcheon23 Nov 2006 7:40 a.m. PST

Arbotah should read Arbroath.

Gluteus Maximus23 Nov 2006 8:22 a.m. PST


thanks for the post [just found the time to read it!]. It's good to read some facts about Wallace et al, instead of all the twaddle we so often see. I've been to Stirling & looked around all the local sites [including the Wallace monument], so I already had a pretty good idea of what happened in reality. Shame wee Mel didn't bother!

As an Enlishman, I'm can accept getting beaten by you Scots _ wel, I can even acept geting beaten by the Aussies! Howevr, I can't accept the laughable way Hollywood seems to think we are all evil loons. Apart from Patrick Stewart, I'm hard pressed to remember an Englishman playing a "hero" in a mainstream hollywood flick. Oh, he was playing a Frenchman…

Maybe I'm just bitter & twisted…. ;-)

I can't remember the last time I bothered to watch a Gibson movie, but it was probably Mad Max, when he still thought he was an Aussie.
Like you, my favourite fantasy works are those by the inestimable JRRT – someone with integrity, intelligence & talent.

And, please, this is _not_ an anti-USA rant. Just an anti-Hollywood one.

[just getting "Death Star III ready to obliterate Tinsel-town]

mawaliuk223 Nov 2006 8:38 a.m. PST

GeoggQRF: But do you find that it inspires you to read the history, then get disappointed to learn that history is not like the film you enjoyed so much that it inspired you to read about it?

Doesn't that then take some of the punch away from the film…" yeah, it was fun, but all rubbish… hmm, I feel disappointed/cheated now"

Me: Not at all. That was the movie – this is how it really was. I can accept them both for what they are. There are lots of movies where I can take the same stance without it annoying me. Of course, this does not mean I like all Hollywood historical movies. I would not watch Alexander again if you paid me. More fact than Braveheart (OK it is hard to find anything with LESS – with the possible exception of SpongeBob Squarepants, but I am not convinced of that!) but no inspiration. For me, films for inspiration, books are for education.

Personal logo Patrick R Supporting Member of TMP23 Nov 2006 9:02 a.m. PST

I think the most galling is all the talk about Wallace and not a word about Gromit …

hurcheon23 Nov 2006 9:12 a.m. PST


"The Battle of Bannockburn, 1314" by Aryeh Nusbacher cuts the English some slack. His theory is that the English actually formed up and marched forward in a decent battle array of the time, but were caught wrong-footed by those opportunistic Scots.

Patrick R
Gromit was off with Edward

SteveJ23 Nov 2006 9:12 a.m. PST

And he had the wrong trousers.

aecurtis Fezian23 Nov 2006 9:30 a.m. PST

"And wasn't Wallace a Norman?- by antecedent.
Or 'William Le Wallace', to give him his correct title."

"Le Waleis". Could indicate Welsh origin, could have been an epithet meaning "stranger, foreigner".


SteveJ23 Nov 2006 9:33 a.m. PST

I wasn't basing that assumption solely on his name. From what I've read- and I may well be wrong- he was of Norman 'stock'.

LeiFeng23 Nov 2006 10:01 a.m. PST

erm, so, what about the english death star, hen (that's scottish for amiable fellow, to call them a hen)

hurcheon23 Nov 2006 10:10 a.m. PST


I thin, to be idiomatic you'd say

"What about the English Death Star, but"


"What about the English Death Star, by the way"


"What about the English Death Star, y'ken"

hen is a bit old fashioned and Broon like

aecurtis Fezian23 Nov 2006 12:16 p.m. PST

"Hey, you! What about the English Death Star, Jimmy?"


RockyRusso23 Nov 2006 12:28 p.m. PST


I don't understand. I have reviewed Braveheart a lot simpler: "The only connection this movie has with history is the names of some of the participants". THE END.

As for the usual complaint about "anti-brit". I guess as an american, and a history buff, I have a different version of your complaint.

Lets see: Michael Caine? The various brits playing "James Bond", I could go on and on. The part that always gets me is that when "hollywood" wants to show a sophistated hero he has an english accent! Just why would, say, All of Rome sound BRITISH while conquering the world. This is a cliche! THESE WERE ITALIANS!

You guys should see the Abbot and Costello bit about "niagra falls". They have a character who seems to find every comment Costello makes to drive him into a frenzy where he recreates the murder of his evil wife!


Daffy Doug23 Nov 2006 2:07 p.m. PST

Wow, that's amazing. Longer even than my published letter to our newspaper, on the same topic. I was "outraged" by quite a few elements of Braveheart when it first came out. Mainly the trashing of Wallace, imho. But "YMMV" was never more true, since actually nothing is known to be factual about the man….

Personal logo Parzival Supporting Member of TMP23 Nov 2006 2:55 p.m. PST

Hey, I liked it, even though I knew it was all bunk. As a movie, it's great storytelling. Do I wish they'd made better history as well as a great myth? Sure. But only a fool watches a movie and thinks they've seen what actually happened. :-P

Porkmann24 Nov 2006 2:15 a.m. PST

Hey Parzival, don't be too tough.

Next you will be telling me that Commodus wasn't killed in the arena by Russell Crowe.

Steve Flanagan24 Nov 2006 4:17 a.m. PST

Wooden Castles

I seem to recall reading (probably in Michael Prestwich's The Three Edwards) that the castles that Edward I built in Scotland were indeed wooden, because he was running short of money after his (stone) castle building spree in Wales.

Sane Max24 Nov 2006 5:40 a.m. PST

I enjoyed the movie, but was rather put off by the sight of his fillings when he screams 'Freeeeeedom' at the end.


Doctor Strangelove24 Nov 2006 10:07 a.m. PST

My God, whats wrong with Braveheart has been done on many previous threads, let it rest, come on people, find another movie to pick on, or lets talk about ZARDOZ!

tancred24 Nov 2006 11:25 a.m. PST

Lets talk about the patriot – where Mel wins Guilford Courthouse all on his own and sends the evil nazi brits packing. God I hate that movie.

RockyRusso24 Nov 2006 11:44 a.m. PST


Sure, why didn't he tell the version from the British point of view where those ungrateful hicks in america, all wrapped up in their denial of the king as the supreme prelate, insisting on being disrespectful of their noble betters.

Ya, that's the ticket, Mel tells a story of the Revolution as a terrible evil mistake by americans. Noble brits, wronged. THAT would be a Hit movie.


Scutatus24 Nov 2006 3:35 p.m. PST

Regarding WWII and the British/Americans. If strategic carpet bombing isn't wholesale genocide and the destruction of areas then I don't know what is. We wiped out whole towns you know, quite indescriminitely.

The Russians were just more honest about it.

We weren't nearly as righteous or as innocent as we like to make beleive. We're hypocrites to look back on WWII standing on our morale high ground.

Pages: 1 2