In 1995, Mel Gibson and Icon Productions

released Braveheart, which was nominated for 61 awards

and won 31 of those, including Oscars for Best Picture

and Best Director.

If there had been an award for least historically

accurate movie, it would have won that as well.

The timeline is wrong, the events they got right

are depicted wrong, the look of it is laughably wrong,

and there are some artistic choices

they made regarding the characters that are wrong.

In 1276, when the story began, the film

shows Scotland struggling to determine

who would be the king after the deaths of Alexander

III and his three children.

The thing is, all four people were actually alive and 1276.

In fact, the king wouldn't die for another 10 years.

In 1286, the rebellion started, but it

didn't start the way the movie would have us believe.

In the film, William Wallace's father Malcolm

was among those Scots lured to a fake Scottish summit only

to be attacked by the British.

Malcolm's death was the first spark of young William's hatred

for England.

But in reality, there was no summit.

That inciting incident in the life of the protagonist

was a total fabrication.

In 1297, the Scottish fought the British

in the Battle of Stirling Bridge.

That made its way into the film, but why

did they show the battle without including the titular bridge?

The real life bridge created a bottleneck

that was essential to the Scots' strategy.

Also in 1297, Wallace's men raided several cities

in Northumberland, which is in the northeast of England.

The film showed the Scots sacking York,

which is over 100 miles south.

In 1298, the Battle of Falkirk took place.

During the film version, Irish soldiers

were inspired by Wallace and his men,

so they abandoned their post with the British

and joined the Scots.

The real battle didn't include any Irish.

Now, let's take a look at the costuming.

In the 1300s, kilts weren't a thing.

Those didn't come into fashion until around the 1600s.

The men would have been dressed in tunics and hosen,

maybe even baggy shorts called braies.

Scottish males at the time wouldn't

have had long hair, since that would

have been considered feminine.

And if they had, they certainly wouldn't have spruced it up

with pretty braids and adornments.

Now, let's address the blue face paint.

In the fourth century, one could find

a warrior sporting such paint, or more likely,

tattoos on the battlefield.

Those warriors were Picts, the people

indigenous to the British Isles over 1,000 years

before the events of Braveheart took place.

In the mid-1700s, bagpipes were banned as an instrument of war.

That didn't stop the movie from talking

about bagpipes being illegal some 400 years before the ban.

At least the errors found on the Scottish soldiers

were matched by the British soldiers,

who were wearing matching uniforms that

didn't exist at the time.

What also didn't exist at the time was a pagan British king.

Edward I was very much a Christian

who even participated in the Crusades.

Let's look at the film's depiction of Edward II

homosexuality.

It's unclear whether he had sexual relationships with men,

and we don't know if his father knew or cared about it.

But the fact is he was married.

He and his wife had tension, but that didn't stem

from him finding her repulsive.

He had four kids with her.

Other than Isabella, the person most associated with Edward

was Piers Gaveston, whom the movie shows

being thrown out of the window to his death

by Edward's father.

That simply didn't happen.

William Wallace never seduced Edward's wife Isabella.

She never met him and was only 13 when he died.

Isabella and Edward didn't marry until several years after that.

And for the biggest fact bending of all--

William Wallace wasn't referred to as "Braveheart."

In 1329, that honor was bestowed upon Robert the Bruce, whom

the movie erroneously suggested was involved in Wallace's

capture and execution.

He was called Braveheart because, as per his wishes,

his heart was posthumously removed

so it can be taken on a crusade before being

buried in Scotland.

What else did they get wrong about William Wallace?

His dad was probably Alex Wallace, not Malcolm Wallace.

Regardless, neither died when William was young,

and they were both minor nobility rather than commoners,

as portrayed in the movie.

Since William wasn't orphaned as a child,

he didn't have to go live with his uncle Argyle, which

is just as well, because Uncle Argyle didn't exist.

William's wife Murron, existed, except her name was Marion.

That fudging makes sense because Murron is

the Gaelic version of the name.

And yes, she was killed by the British,

but it wasn't after an assault by a British soldier.

It was because she housed her fugitive husband after he

ran from a marketplace brawl.

William was also killed by the British in 1305,

and this is one example where the movie actually toned it

down for some reason.

He wasn't just hanged, disemboweled, drawn,

and quartered.

He was also dragged naked through the streets for six

miles, fully emasculated, forced to watch

while his intestines were burned,

and then his heart and head were removed.

His head was displayed on London Bridge

while his other parts were displayed all over London.

And that's the real story of William Wallace.

If you like what you see, be sure to subscribe

to the Weird History Channel, and watch our other videos.

[MUSIC PLAYING]