BRAVEHEART - How Not To Make A Historical Film - Part 2 | Cynical Reviews

[@mjp9197]

The scots survived all of those battles because they had spent all their resources on plot armor

[@johannaweichsel3602]

Great idea....

[@NikkiMKarLen]

Hah!

[@CommanderM117]

plot Armour aka Scottish wrath

[@godzillavkk]

Good thing they ran out at Falkirk.

[@mysteriousgamerlegend7895]

We must have been skint at Falkirk Bridge, then found more resources afterwards right up to Bannockburn ^^

[@kbucket]

I lived in Scotland for awhile and most scots I know hate this movie because the inaccuracies. Funny enough the Wallace Monument you showed that actually depicts Mel Gibson as Wallace was a huge controversy. It looks over Stirling and was suppose to be a historically accurate monument of the real William Wallace and when the artist revealed the statue, there was a huge outrage.

[@brandonholian8130]

Lol. I can just imagine all the scots expecting a timeless masterpiece. Then the cloth is pulled back and its fucking Mel Gibson. The Road Warrior.

[@andysm1964]

or Mel as Mad Max..even better

[@ryang790]

that is totally n utterly hilarious..

[@cartooncritique6625]

The artist was either incompetent or a major fuckin' troll. XD

[@ProjectRedfoot]

That is insanely funny

[@shurik121]

Braveheart is a very well made fantasy film.

[@thomasraahauge5231]

Shurik: But they forgot the dragons, and their Wild Fire was kinda tame . . .

[@vilgot9570]

shurik121 glad someone actually saw the good in the move while it was historically inaccurate it’s an pretty good fantasy movie tho it lacks in editing

[@teeprice7499]

They should have made the english elves, the Scots dwarves, and had a dragon...

[@kendallandrews8691]

@Django Fett I'd say it is well made. It has a good size budget and the fight scenes are cool. It is just over the top fantasy that people shouldn't treat as history.

[@MrCordycep]

"So King Dickhead sends Isabella who is about three now..." LOL! And I thought HistoryBuffs was brutal on this film, but your addition of sarcasm gave it more of a savage twist.

[@Yes_Fantasy_419]

It was a hell of a lot more personal and offensive for history buffs because he's Scottish from his father's side while being English on his mother's side. If I was a Scottish man I would also be fuckin offended by this piece of shit propoganda.

[@ryanodonovan9497]

I actually think History Buffs was less kind when it came to Braveheart than Cynical Reviews, as he didn't even try to see any good in it like what Cynical Reviews does here. But then again, like Prison For Fascist Trump said, it was more personal to Nick Hodges because of his family heritage.

[@muhammadeisa1459]

@@ryanodonovan9497 Cynical is both a history buff and a film enthusiast. "History Buffs" is primarily a fan of history and not of films. I think Cynical likes it more because he enjoys films a lot and to be fair to Braveheart, it is an EXCELLENT film, historical inaccuracies aside.

[@mestupkid211986]

I liked HistoryBuff's "teleporting pedophile" comment too. :D

[@LadyLocket]

Mel Gibsons Wallace was the most American Scottish man in film history. Aside from all you pointed out, I wanted to add something that annoyed me as I hated the overly dramatic unneeded horse deaths. Cavalry was used to ride in groups, strike, then ride out and regroup then go in somewhere else. They didn't line up in the front of the army and lead the charge. Horses were expensive to have and maintain and equip, they wouldn't have had hundreds of mounted soldiers, only small groups at most. They certainly didn't ride straight into spiked poles they can see easily see in advance. These riders seem to think either spikes don't hurt horses or horses can't be steered or go any way other than forward.

[@TomYawns]

mel gibson's australian, and norman heavy cavalry literally just pummel into troops en masse

[@cccpredarmy]

In fact cavalry troops were probably the most disciplined on the battlefield. Only the best would be used to mount those "beasts". The training began since childhood and the drill continued the whole life. During a battle the cavalry formations could "fake" an attack multiple times riding back and forth on the battlefield just in order to provoke the enemy to charge first or to scare away archers.

[@michaeldavid9620]

Really? Alexander the Great at the battle of Gaugamela would disagree. But I'll concede to your military expertise. Something tells me you've learned all you know sitting in your mom's basement.

[@ALIEN-DUDE]

Nice profile pic 😊

[@olenickel6013]

@@michaeldavid9620 If you think Alexander charged straight into solid lines of pikes, you should stop lecturing people about learning their history while "sitting in your mom's basement". The macedons revolutionized cavalry tactics at their times by organizing their best noblemen ("Hetairoi", meaning companions, implicitely the companions of the king) to ride in formations that would follow a leader and, prior to hitting the enemy, ride a slight curve and hitting the enemy with the flank of their cavalry formation. That solved two problems that had plagued cavalry charges at that time: first, maintaining a cohesive formation while charging. Having a leader to follow in a triangular formation meant that others in the charge had a fixed point on which to align their speed and positioning. But once they hit the enemy, this meant that the "tip" of that formation, the unit leader, would face the enemy alone upon impact, which encouraged routs and the horses to shy away from the enemy mass. By riding in a curve and then hitting the enemy with the broader side of the triangular formation, the impact of the charge was multiplied and cavalry charges became more efficient. This was the "flying wedge" that would dominate much of cavalry tactics for the coming millenia. But not then nor later would you want your cavalry to charge straight into a phalanx, a shieldwall or similiar formations. That was a death sentence, if you even managed to get your horses to actually complete the charge. You wanted to hit the flanks of the enemy when he was engaged in melee, in order to break and rout them. Or you would charge against units that had lost cohesion, for example after provoking them into an unorderly attack themselves. As for Gaugamela, this was no charge similiar to the one portrayed in Braveheart either. Alexander charged into a gap that had opened in the Persian center in the midst of the battle and he did so to directly attack the Persian king, frightening him and causing him to flee, which inspired a mass rout of the Persian forces. The battle was an example of Alexanders brilliance because, by normal metrics, he would probably have lost that battle, but he employed knowledge of the enemy and psychology (and, perhaps, a fair amount of luck) to his advantage to defeat a superior foe. If all you get out of this was "charge the enemy center with cavalry", you've not learned the lesson.

[@skeletonking2501]

'MERIC- wait, this isn't America? This is Scotland? Even though it acts like it is? Well if that's the case... *'COTLAND!*

[@michaal105]

It's still great though

[@Xehanort10]

The film does come off like one of those overly patriotic American films where they portray America and all its people as good but all other countries and their people as evil when all countries have their share of not only good and bad people but people more morally ambiguous than that.

[@galo1486]

when Americans Americanized Scottish history

[@CynicalReviews]

Be glad you haven't heard of U-571. An utter abomination.

[@atomskthepirateking2776]

You mean Australian American?

[@TheKeyser94]

From what America? North America? Central America? South America? There are so many Americas.

[@johnnygreenface]

how many of the people in those countries call them self Americans

[@pottertheavenger1363]

You mean when muricans muricanized Scottish history. Mel did the same with Apocalypto, ew.

[@wanderinghistorian]

1. I learned the truth about Stirling Bridge only after doing research on my family origins. Apparently my ancestors owned Stirling Bridge. 2. Love the inclusion of the, "Are we the baddies?"

[@occam7382]

Dang, that's pretty cool. Do you know who owns the bridge now (assuming it still exists)?

[@ahmataevo]

So... according to the movie William Wallace was fighting against the computer in Medieval: Total War. Even on the hardest difficulty you could still get that kill-loss ratio.

[@twinzzlers]

Lmao I'm playing the elder scrolls mod for Total War right now

[@elgranlugus7267]

Also, i've read that Wallace literally fled the battle at Falkirk. He didn't wanted to fight the english at open field, so, he was like: "All right lads, good luck getting massacred" and he ran away. But you can't put that in this film right?

[@daustin8888]

That would have been hilarious if they put that in the film, but William Wallace still killed the other guys for leaving

[@randomguyontheinternet8345]

According to the sources he fled the field because they were losing everyone was running away not just wallace.

[@WilliamGarland]

3:08 Look! Captain America: Medieval Knight!

[@CynicalReviews]

Time Travel Confirmed.

[@pottertheavenger1363]

The man with the plan!

[@JacobBite]

That's James Douglas, Lord of Douglas. AKA Black Douglas.

[@paulenan9636]

@@JacobBite THIS!

[@volkerw88]

I‘m pretty sure its Captain Americas Scottish cousin 😜

[@DarthDevorin]

I used to idolize the film. This was a much needed idol-smashing. Keep it up.

[@Yes_Fantasy_419]

You poor bastard. You're like a Catholic man who was molested by a priest when he was a little boy but was brainwashed.

[@annulizbeth]

@@Yes_Fantasy_419 idk if I should laugh or cry or both ...

[@Thriftxxxx]

Lord of the North Breh “that’s in appropriate” stfu 😂

[@jamestown8398]

11:46 Also, for a woman to admit to adultery in the middle ages was tantamount to suicide. She might as well have said "cut my head off", because that'd be what he'd have heard.

[@whitedevil4122]

Do you realise that the real Isabella of France did more than just whisper her adultery in someone's ear? She left Edward the 2nd, went home to France, took Roger Mortimer as a lover, came back to England with said lover and a small mercenary army, deposed Edward II, locked him up and became regent on her son, Edward III behalf. It's also rumoured that she had Edward II killed by buggering him with a hot poker but that bits probably not true.

[@whitedevil4122]

@@jamestown8398 Yes. Your comment is saying "for a woman..." where as it's for certain women in certain circumstances but not this woman that you're talking about. She was banging away like a shithouse door and everyone knew it.

[@jamestown8398]

@@whitedevil4122You seem to be downplaying the impotence of the army; having an army of her own was the ONLY reason she could have slept with Roger Mortimer without repercussion. If she didn't have an army, and was in her husband's custody, then boasting about adultery to him would be suicide.

[@louiscyfer6944]

in this case she admitted to a king that could no longer communicate (as per the movie).

[@jamestown8398]

@@louiscyfer6944 The King's son was in the room and heard it too. And even a king on his deathbed would have had bodyguards present.

[@beayn]

When I watch historical dramas like this, I usually assume that the whole thing is not 100% accurate. Usually the major events are accurate, while the sub plots of backstabbing and romance usually aren't. Take the Spartacus TV show for example. All the major events were fairly accurate while all the drama in between was just for show.. it's usually safe to assume that, but I had no idea Braveheart was THIS inaccurate. I did assume that the love story was BS as usual.

[@Meade556]

Several ridiculous things, one of which is that the real Scottish rebels would be extremely offended by the whole 'pict' vibe as they would say it suggested they were not 'civilised christians'

[@CommanderM117]

and i would call them if here today traitor to there homeland abandoning there ancestral gods for ones from a backwards desert

[@CommanderM117]

@@RedFloyd469 yes it does read a again also why would i need google translate for my own language

[@christopherwilliams6848]

@@CommanderM117 Dude, Scots hadn't been pagan for quite a while by the 1300s. Basically the whole of Western Europe, aside from Iberia and some of Ireland, had been heavily Christianised by the 900s, and even the (former) Vikings were Christian by this point. There is no way the Scots would have associated themselves with the Picts, either in religion or custom. To do so would have been grounds for excommunication, in an era where people genuinely believed in Hell.

[@CommanderM117]

@@christopherwilliams6848 did you not read i said if they were here today meaning if they were send to the future i would call them traitors.

[@christopherwilliams6848]

@@CommanderM117 You'd be barking up the wrong tree, then. Go back a few hundred years, and you'd maybe find some actual "traitors", by your definition, but by the 1300s, Christianity *was* the Scottish religion.

[@kaimorton4026]

I have Scot blood. This makes me ashamed. CAN SOMEONE SEND SHREK'S VOICE ACTOR TO DUE A BETTER ACCENT?!?!

[@taracarroll4218]

Mike Myers. An English-Canadian.

[@gregoryfenn1462]

3:50 turns out a horse's one weakness is a pike through the body. Now you know.

[@CynicalReviews]

Gregory Fenn I always thought that their weakness would be a mighty stallion. Although I suppose there are some similarities...

[@gregoryfenn1462]

;)

[@rudolfschrenk9411]

Actually horses never did charge into pikes, except by accident. When cavalry charged pikemen one of two things happened: a) the pikemen lost their nerve, scattered and tried to runaway and were subsequently hunted down by the cavalry (standing in front of charging horses IS scary), or b) The pikemen held formation and the horses either swerved aside or simply stopped. Sometimes so abruptly that their riders sailed forward into these waiting pikes. A cavalry charge was always a contest of nerves. And in most battles seasoned and experienced soldiers/warriors were rare. As said before, standing in front of dozens or hundreds of horses comin at you is scary. But you could count on the horses not to run into a wall of pikes. Horses are way too smart for doin that.

[@alpacaodoom]

@@rudolfschrenk9411 it was documented that pikes were used to protect the bridge and that the horses were impaled and killed this part was loosely based on that documented information

[@rudolfschrenk9411]

@@alpacaodoom I can imagine such a thing happening on a bridge with pressure from behind and no way to evade sideways. On an open field like shown in the movie, never.

[@jeremiahkrouse9827]

Not to mention the English were using a new weapon at the battle of Fallcurk. The longbow were descimated a good number of Wallaces men. It was the rise of the english archer on the battlefeild.

[@Knights.of.Ni.]

The archers was Welsh not English.

[@sircurtisseretse3297]

+Jeremiah Krouse. No. The word longbow was never used in English until it appeared in one of the Paston letters in the 15th century. If you were 6' tall your bow would be 6' long. If you were 4' 9" you would not be using a 6ft bow. The missile weapons used by the English at Falkirk were as folllows: Bows were used by English shire archers. Lancashire archers were well thought of. England owned parts of France. One of the titles held by King Edward I of England was Duke of Gascony. Gascon crossbowmen - many of whom fought on horseback - were the best in the business. King Edward always hired these for his military campaigns. The English also hired slingers for this campaign. Believe it or not, these slingers came from Sherwood Forest. Forget about what Barry Evans says. Some Welsh have convinced themselves they invented the longbow.[Yeah, right.] There were some Welsh in the English army on the campaign that resulted in the Battle of Falkirk. They made trouble by getting into scuffles with the Gascons. As you say, Jeremiah, the Scottish infantry was shot to pieces, and had to withdraw.

[@Knights.of.Ni.]

I didn't say the Welsh invented the bow the archers in the film was Walsh. kzbin.info/www/bejne/rnTUq6moirJ-aMU

[@sircurtisseretse3297]

+Barry Evans Whenever the longbow or some mediaeval English victory is being mentioned on KZbin, there is always some pixelated dick who arrrives and says he is Welsh and that the Welsh invented the longbow, and that all the English archers were Welsh. Yes, Patrick McGoohan mentions that he is bringing Welsh with him on the Scottish campaign. He did not say they were archers. It is your imagination that has made that connection, Taff. They weren't archers. They were mere routiers, whose job it was to weak havoc, and they were paid by whatever they could loot. You will just have to take your inferiority complex elsewhere, and dream on about your phantom Welsh archers. These routiers couldn't tell one end of a bow from the other.

[@AneTix101]

HAHAHA "which was the style at the time"

[@redshanklion7365]

I would like to see an actual historically accurate movie about Robert the Bruce, I always loved researching him.

[@arnocynargos4126]

Here's a challenge: 300

[@CynicalReviews]

Oh, man...don't tempt me.

[@squashedeyeball]

Although Alexander can be a good one... They did take a lot of artistic license in it, but overall, it's not nearly as bad as many other movies.

[@Shenaldrac]

300 is explicitly based on a comic book, also called 300, that is meant to be a fictional retelling of the events. As opposed to Braveheart which actively tries to pretend that it's accurate. 300 at least has some excuse, this film does NOT.

[@ub3rfr3nzy94]

300 is based on a comic dude. There were giants in the movie. If the English had fucking giants in Braveheart I'm sure most people wouldn't assume it to be a true story.

[@pieterpietersen9438]

It doesn’t matter, at the beginning and end you can see that the whole story is told by a spartan, so it makes sense that it is propaganda.

[@theta682pl]

I actually paused the video when I saw the guy claiming that the Roman Empire was destroyed because of immigration, not only did the empire gain so much power because of migration but by the time it was destroyed there were practically nobody who wanted/needed to immigrate to rome.

[@grahamsouthern5583]

Clearly the Roman Empire was not helped by hoards of un-Romanised germanic tribesmen coming in. But in many ways it was a symptom rather than a cause - the enfeebled Empire used them as mercenaries and gave them land in exchange; bad move. Your last point is wrong, too. With some exceptions, the barbarians didn't want to destroy Roman civilisation, they wanted to enjoy it - most German kings wanted to be "Roman", with all the kudos and comfort that implied - why do you think Charlemagne got the pope to anoint him 'Holy Roman Emperor"?

[@ILikedGooglePlus]

@@grahamsouthern5583 You're so wrong it's genuinely impressive. Check out 'The Fall of The Roman Empire' by Shaun here on KZbin if you want to actually learn about why the Empire fell

[@grahamsouthern5583]

@@ILikedGooglePlus The reasons were complicated and mainly economic. Over-expansion, debasement of the currency and the fact that the city itself was basically a drain, sucking resources from the empire and producing nothing. Simply said, the empire became too big for the technology and social structures existing at the time. If the video you refer to is in any way worthwhile, then it will say this.

[@HaganeNoGijutsushi]

It's funny because the US too manage to win their independence from the English with French help, but also rarely admit to it.

[@samwallaceart288]

It’s weird that when Vietnam splits and gets independence, and fights America, it’s considered a proxy-war between America and USSR; but when America splits and fights the British, only surviving on French naval backing/funding, it’s framed as a Revolution.

[@jacobmercado3762]

@@samwallaceart288 It was a proxy war. Because America never occupied Vietnam for more than 100 years. And Vietnam is a weird one. You had two sides in the country who hated the French since they were the ones who conquered and colonize Vietnam. Than the two sides were at each other because one believed in capitalism and the other in communism. Vietnam split into two after defeating the French. The Americans came along to stop the spread of communism in all of southeast Asia because of the Domino Effect Theory. The USSR and China were interested in these nations as they saw them fit as satellite states for them. Both sides of the cold war did this. It also funny too, the Chinese had help the NVA in the war. But Vietnam ended up fighting China and winning. Than in the 90s, Vietnam became good friends with the US.

[@blacktemplar9499]

Not just French help Spanish and Dutch also helped

[@wereberius9201]

Hagane no Gijutsushi That’s not really true. I always learned about that in school growing up. The French liked us because they hated the English and Ben Franklin became their best friend.

[@neegas3490]

@@wereberius9201 yeah

[@jw6238]

*More patriotism, Leroy Jenkins!* 😂😂

[@zentarim2]

I've always known this film was riddled with problems, but I had no idea it was this many. Thanks for the informative video, its clear you worked hard on it!

[@Connor.SG-1Ring]

Williams Wallace's actually battle speech. “Behold I have brought you into a ring, now carol and dance as well as you can.”

[@hoobadooba2000]

BUT MORE PATRIOTISM🤣🤣🤣 you kill me every time you say that. I’m glad you do like this movie Atleast. Even though it’s not historically accurate.

[@athath2010]

*MUH

[@mrsilhouette5444]

"The Scots should be ashamed". Why? Surely it's the film makers who should be ashamed and Scots should be livid, no?

[@wannabehistorian371]

Where did he say that?

[@occam7382]

@@wannabehistorian371, I believe at one point he said "If I was Scottish, I'd be ashamed."

[@DeepEye1994]

Jesus, at least 300 still portrayed the Persians as the invaders and the Spartans as those who stood up against them. Now, unlike Braveheart 300 isn't meant to be historical or claims to be accurate (it's based on a comic based on a film Frank Miller saw as a kid) but holy crap now I get why some of my friends and other historians I saw on the internet spitefully say that 300 is more accurate than Braveheart.

[@MrChickennugget360]

Braveheart is a good movie but in terms of accuracy it could not be less accurate if they put a claymation dog as a sidekick to Wallace.

[@Lawful_Rebel]

Mel Gibson, never once claimed, Braveheart" was historically accurate. I think people would need to be mentally retarded to imagine it was.

[@Michae89]

Did you watch the video? Sure, Gibson didn't claim it was historically accurate in the interviews, but the narration in the film itself sure does claim it. And unfortunately people don't fact check things like that.

[@Michae89]

Sure, yet there are people who believe it. People are known for not fact checking. Hell, people actually believe that the Conjuring story is real and it has ghosts and stuff. Here we have historical fiction masquerading as fact by using the narration presented in the video above. There's no disclamer at the beginning of the movie saying "Hey, Mel Gibson doesn't claim this movie's historically accurate". And as I said, unfortunately people rarely fact check things like that.

[@iPyroNigma]

I hate to be the one to point this out, but 300 paints Persia as evil demonic slavers, when in reality they libererated those people they conquered. If anything, Greece and Sparta were against freedom of the people (except the citizens of their own city-state)

[@casperrabbit7254]

Moral of the story: Don't let Americans make movies about history

[@r.j.penfold]

Especially if it's the history of America, cuz they'll either gloss over the fact that they wiped out the natives, or they'll (at least somewhat) over exaggerate what happened so they can be like "See? We're sorry." just to get brownie points with the SJWs and then turn around and not give an actual shit for the still living natives that struggle with land disputes and whatnot to this day. I might be a bit off though cuz I tend to not dip into politics, so take what I say with a spoonful of salt. But Hollywood sucks ass.

[@dqverify6797]

R.J. Penfold ask the Spanish about “wiping out the natives.” Or maybe look at the hundreds of American westerns. “Gloss over,” lol.

[@r.j.penfold]

@@dqverify6797 yeah woosh me I'm dumb and didn't learn shit in school. fuck.

[@i_will_not_elaborate]

As an American and as much as I love Pocahontas and Anastasia... this is true. However, I think it's more Boomers and silent gens that do these things. Because a lot of the younger generations are becoming more aware of historical events. Maybe someday we'll be able to make better historical movies.

[@saravanandhanasegar2095]

Genocide is the history of American

[@MrAspiringactor]

14:29 Forget what I said about Tiptoes, THIS is what The Greatest Showman would be like without musical numbers

[@chloedickson1258]

Even as a Scot I still find this absolutely hilarious! The number of historical inaccuracies are mind-boggling. Though as someone who comes from Falkirk I must say that's definitely a new and, to be fair, better way of pronouncing it.

[@michaelhawkins7389]

hahaha your last name is funny lmao

[@TheRealSponathan]

Yeah, Oscar for best editing. In one of the fight scenes you can literally see a white sedan in the background and people wearing wristwatches. No shit, look it up. God awful

[@grannybawz]

An excellent video detailing how this film utterly abandons historical fact and indulges in pure fantasy. However to tie it so heavily to the present day independence movement, tarnishing moves towards a referendum as 'anti-english' in the process, is woefully misguided and ill-informed. Most Scots are perfectly aware that Braveheart is a load of mince when it comes to historical accuracy, but it is embraced culturally in a tongue-in-cheek, self-deprecating manner as it's an undeniably fun film...it has little to no influence in guiding the political aims and ambitions of the current Scottish independence movement. It is a sad indictment of the state of the British media that a dynamic, welcoming, civil movement for democracy can be presented to the rest of the UK as nothing but a rabble of parochial, xenophobic, fanatics of a 23 year old medieval fantasy film. I don't honestly don't blame or judge you for having this perception of the independence movement as it's the dominant image consistently peddled outside Scotland, but I would advise you to research this topic a little further as to many Scots the last few minutes of this fantastic two-parter will come across as condescending, out of touch and simply false.

[@seancollett6]

Love the film, hate the historical license it takes. I have always had the same arguments against it but now I see it more in terms of all the stupid pointless wars Europeans fought internally. Such a waste.

[@CynicalReviews]

Me too. Love the film. Hate the butchering of history. As a massive fan of history, I'm usually not too fussed about historical license. But this went too far.

[@seancollett6]

I am a massive pain in the arse when it comes to historical films. My students don't get it.

[@andystrachan598]

"Muh patriotism" 😂 Definitely my new favourite phrase.

[@rexl.6323]

I heard Wallace got hit with an arrow in the throat and became a stand user

[@thatsoundslikeheresytomeyo4960]

Huh

[@OlaftheFlashy]

@@thatsoundslikeheresytomeyo4960 JoJo reference.

[@masonmorgan7071]

no dude your thinking the battle of Standford bridge the Norse king Harold hadroda was shot in the throat resulting of the Saxon victory however three weeks later the Saxons fight the most important battle in English history in 1066 which they sadly lost

[@OlaftheFlashy]

@@masonmorgan7071 again it's a reference gag to the manga/anime Jojo's Bizarre Adventure, specifically this: jojo.wikia.com/wiki/Bow_and_Arrow

[@FUJISAN992]

I am sad that Cynical reviews didn't use the joke from the Johnny Bravo episode "Loch Ness Johnny" where a a character who looks surprisingly like Wallace as portrayed by Mel shouts the line: "THEY MAY TAKE OUR LIVES, BUT THEY WILL NEVER TAKE OUR MAKE-UP!"

[@Blaqjaqshellaq]

They should make a movie about the real Queen Isabella! She deposed Edward II and his new squeeze (Hugh Despenser) and ruled England as regent for four years with the help of her new squeeze Roger Mortimer. She made peace with the Scots but spent extravagantly, and in 1330 her son Edward III claimed his crown, deposed her and sent her away from the court. Her enemies nicknamed her The She-Wolf of France and gave her a "femme fatale" image!

[@herecomesthatboy1961]

There really isn't much to suggest Hugh the younger was any kind of lover like Gaveston was.

[@wannabehistorian371]

It might be an interesting political drama.

[@valmarsiglia]

I love how in just about every cinematic depiction of ancient or medieval battles, both sides just charge into each other at full sprint after marching to the battlefield in perfect battle array.

[@psychokinrazalon]

Rome was more historically accurate.

[@vestty5802]

After getting into history this film is physically and emotionally impossible for me to watch

[@michaelt.5672]

Here's an interesting comparison: "The Last Samurai" has about the same degree of relation to true history as "Braveheart" does. But it had the decency of not using any actual historical people (other than Emperor Meiji), but to create stand-in characters that took inspiration from historical people, rather than represent them.

[@emielpeper9248]

Moght be quite late to mention it, but Outlaw King is a bit of a spiritual successor to Braveheart. In the sense that it focuses on Robert's story after Wallace's death. Major difference being that Outlaw King is very historically accurate. Might be worth looking at.

[@agent6959]

I am fighting for FREEEEEEEEEEDOOOOOOOM!!! from shit films! Ive at to resort to guerrilla tactics at the moment, the tides are sure to change am sure.

[@arnekrug939]

Now you know how a German feels when watching a movie about the time from 1864-1945.

[@arnekrug939]

@April Zhan There was no German state but there was Germany.

[@Cedillallidec]

@April Zhan Research "Congress of Vienna" and "German Confederation". Then be a man, and apologise.

[@LeatherCladVegan]

Lol. Germans don't have feelings.

[@arnekrug939]

@April Zhan It only seems arbitrary if you don't know about German history and the German unification wars, the first of wich was the Second Schleswig War, wich was portrayed in a rather onesided way by the Danish TV series "1864" from 2014.

[@Cedillallidec]

@April Zhan Meh...sore loser...and now you prove you are sexist because you admit you have no idea of how to be a man. Ignorant and sexist is no way to go through life.

[@macflod]

Good video! Thanks!! Im from Scotland and i got 3 things to say. Firstly, most people here know this is not historically correct. In school most of us got taught about this period of our history around ages 7-8 and know this isn’t correct. Secondly Im so so glad you mentioned how this warps our present day perspective all the same though.... the google search for Wallace tends to turn up a blue faced Mel Gibson which drives me nuts!! Also the braveheart Wallace Statue which is Mel Gibson with freedom and brave heart written, is more fitting of a Braveheart tribute and should not have been placed at the historical monument site when its all wrong and braveheart was Bruce😡!! Thankfully its moved now and im so glad that it was met with a lot of criticism for the reasons above, which is testament that the Scottish people know their history was not like the movie!! If anything Scots can get annoyed as they don’t like people thinking we walk around shouting freedom etc! Its almost become a way to poke fun now, which is fine but can get annoying after a while. The final thing im going to say is that braveheart had very little bearing on the independence movement and it was never mentioned once in any debate i heard. I did hear it parodied by comedians but it was nothing to do with any serious modern political debate. The independence movement was around long before the movie and it never got growing momentum until a good 15 years after the movie, and over a decade after devolution! The Iraq war, school meals for kids and nuclear weapons had more impact than braveheart. For anyone interested- the independence movement was not about nationalistic chest beating but more about getting political power to carry out Scotlands own ideals and agendas. In the last 40 years scotland consistently rejected the governments its had at a UK level for 27of those years and the Scots keep going a direction they don’t want to (well, sort of, because independence was rejected) . Brexit is a good example of this. It was mostly about this issue of “democratic deficit” above all and nothing to do with a movie or medieval history. There may have been the odd nutter on the fringes who did think of it like this but i certainly never seen it and it would have been a very very small number of people like this.

[@neryn-2924]

Cynical: And no, I'm not counting the background because no one does. Dead Meat: Hello, I'm James A. Janisse

[@darkonetzeentch8214]

The ”Are we the baddies” part killed me xD

[@EmpeorWiki]

I needed this, thank you

[@CynicalReviews]

You're welcome!

[@andyfarley6092]

I had to tell my American friends that it's a good movie, but about as accurate as "Stop or my mom will shoot".

[@theendofconfusion]

"Aye," said the local. *puts on sunglasses* "That's what the English found." I could not stop laughing!

[@jeroenceulemans3715]

All my life I have been enchanted by Scotland; mostly the landscapes and the general attitude Scottish people had towards us as (Dutch) tourists and being proud of what they did have. My family and I visited Scotland a few times. As much as it pained us to see a great divide between poor and rich there, we were stunned with admiration for how much happier they were with what they did have and were not shy to offer us a bottle of wine for finding us good company at the time. TL;DR I was a young kid (7ish) who fell in love with the landscape after watching this film and I have always felt more at home there than I have anywhere else. I am now 29 years old, my phone background is a picture of a thistle in the wild and one of my swords has a thistle engraved on it. I watched this film a week ago and without really knowing the proper history, it felt off how shallow everything was put that the Scots commoners were good and everyone else bad. Thank you for these videos so that I learned more truth about the country I will always love and call home, no matter how far away from it I am.

[@Sleepy_DOOD1701]

I'm from Glasgow and had never seen Braveheart till I took history and they showed us the movie. It enraged me how little consideration that wife besting anti-semite Mel Gibson took for historical accuracy because it just teaches lies to those who are unfamiliar with our history. It is a good movie but it should have been a historically accurate movie first and an action romance second. This movie was supposed to show the history and struggle Scott's have had for almost a millennium. Scottish independence isn't as black and white as the movie portrays it to be and one of our greatest heroes Robert the Bruce would swap sides depending on who was winning

[@DarthNicky]

i mean what I really don't understand is if they wanted to demonise England, why didn't they just pick something out from like, most of Irish history in the last 800 or so years?

[@CommanderM117]

or the angle/saxon invasion wait that would make the local Celt seem bad as they forced the new people to be commoner and to obey Celtic rule shit.

[@isaacwilson4174]

That's actually a good point, considering how Americans tend to romanticise Irish history and Culture - even to the point of films about The Troubles depicting the IRA as being completely right in their actions

[@DarthNicky]

@Jeremy Brookes ...what?

[@garrygilmoreseyes486]

@@CommanderM117 You sound quite ignorant

[@davidmcintyre998]

Are you sure about that,the history of Ireland is complex but sometimes very different to the folklore version,if you fight among yourselves inviting in Empire builders like the Normans tears will be the result.

[@oldman5247]

An awesome movie that I was painfully aware even when I first saw it, I knew it was historically inaccurate. I didn't know the extent of the damage when it comes but, wow. It really didn't know that much at all except that the basic events of when Scotland fought and lost the war. Now if there was an awesome movie but yet was more less faithful to a certain degree when it comes to history; Laurence of Arabia has your back.

[@johnkelly3886]

No! The Scots won the war and regained their independence.

[@theoptimist4771]

As an Indian watching this, i can only say... THE ENGLISH ARE BAD!!!!!!:):):):)

[@annulizbeth]

As another Indian THE ENGLISH ARE BAD B)))))

[@thotticussupremus4772]

*English spotted*

[@fadygabr1396]

I love all the references to princess Isabella being a toddler, it makes me laugh so hard

[@ragerancher]

Also that scene where Wallace is talking about the pike as if it is a great new idea rather than the oldest weapon in human history.

[@stefanradebach2889]

One of the major problems about this film is that it it injects modern American things like "freedom" "country" which when you think about it makes no sense in the time period but that's what happens when you let Hollywood writers make a historical film that not only gets characters wrong but even gets their ages completely wrong despite historical records clearly telling otherwise which was probably done deliberately all to shoehorn in an unnecessary romance and just being antagonizing against the English and all to capture a "spirit" or "feeling" and they can't even do that right. This whole thing feels like a bad fanfiction come to the big screen.

[@jordanthomas4379]

Watching that guy getting thrown out the castle window was hilarious.

[@irena4545]

THANK you for dismantling this steaming pile of shit for what it is. It's one of those films I wish I could unsee, and will so until the end of my days. It. Was. Horrible. And the "freedom" propaganda makes me want to puke.

[@katherineg9572]

I was in my social class last week and the class was debating whether or not Braveheart was historically accurate. I’ve never watched the movie but I watched your video the night before just so I could just reiterate you, so thank you.

[@LumpusKrampus]

"Are we the baddies?" Perfect, I needed a pick-me-up today lol

[@Gigatony74]

Now imagine if all people controlling our entertainment decided to put a certain group of people as the villains, constantly painting them as evil by default while most of protagonists are not from this group. What do you think would happen in 'not so long' term ?

[@wannabehistorian371]

3:25 This kind of contradicts what you said earlier. While it is true that common nationalism wasn’t a thing at this point, the fact that Wallace explicitly talks about protecting his kingdom here does point to him being loyal to his kingdom. 4:21 Also, how the hell does this happen in live action? Seriously, you have to try for this to happen!

[@JimmyC1994]

I used to work for an Edinburgh tours office. People (mostly Americans) asked me about this movie all the time My favourite question was "Does Mr. Gibson still live here?" I always said "yup, him and Sir Sean Connery live in Edinburgh castle with Ewan McGregor and The Proclaimers. They have a pet Haggis"

[@arigat-o9670]

I think Shrek is more historically accurate than this movie.

[@littlemsterious991]

excuse me, have you read the book shrek was based off of??? the donkey barely mattered, the dragon died and shrek had laser vision... still closer though

[@foultarnished0101]

I was also told that apparently, when this movie first released, Scottish people were also peeved off by its heavy inaccuracy. If it was a fantasy with made up characters based in england and Scotland, then it would br considered a fantastic movie.

[@linkofvev]

It's funny how they portray William Wallace beating the English with pikes when in reality, the battle he used pikes in, he lost. The Scottish cav did flee and this allowed the English longbowmen to annihilate the defenseless Scottish schiltron.

[@SiriusMined]

The funny part about the spears at Stirling is that Wallace DID use schiltrons (spear formations) at Fallkirk (which isn't done in the movie)

[@matthewprice6465]

"i'm sure the real william wallace would love that this is how he was remembered" *astolfo laughs*

[@nicmagtaan1132]

astolfo actually did cross dress for orlando(Roland) when he is brokenhearted

[@chrismason5905]

I actually enjoyed the bit where the King threw Phillip out of the window.

[@LizbetNene]

I really enjoyed these two videos, it's great to hear this analysis from someone who actually appreciates the strengths of the film because as a film on it's own, I also really love it, but you raise an excellent argument that no piece of art exists in a vacuum and the ideas it puts out have consequences. Thanks for making them, good job!

[@claudiolentini5067]

I have to say, i love how an unusual word that was explained at the start of the review is now used troughout the two videos. Is a nice touch

[@barbarahumphreys4887]

I absolutely love this movie. That said, I also loved your review. Well done. Also, many parts were hilarious. Awesome content!

[@tsuritsa3105]

I didn't know as much about Wallace when I watched it, but I DID know something about Isabella of France, the She-Wolf, and I started picking it apart there. It fell apart for me shortly after that.

[@gcooper642]

These were 2 very interesting videos. I would enjoy more history content if you were going to post it.

[@georgejones8481]

Mel Gibson teaching history is like the McCanns teaching child care

[@AttitudePark]

I remember the first time I watched this. Around 9 or 10 year old, and my Dad paused the scene before the horses got pierced by the long spears to tell me it wasn't real. Aye Dad, I've just sat through an attempted rape, English being turned into mince but aye, the Scottish harming the animals was the only fake part in this film. I'm a proud Scotsman, but holy fuck this film is such a self-blowjob

[@stevennewlands2978]

😂😂😂 i was the same but ma da paused it to explain to ma wee sister who was about 6 at the time that it was just pretend horses

[@molybdomancer195]

Thank you for addressing my biggest bugbear with most "historical" films. They play fast and loose with the facts and then hide behind the claim they are not in fact history, while presenting themselves as just that. The majority of people didn't pay attention at school and don't study history afterwards, but these films have influence on current affairs.

[@theradgegadgie6352]

13:07 Leroy Jenkins? As a WoW player, that made me cackle.

[@havingfun9324]

I know I’m late to the party but I love that at 14:34 I can see Mary Beard replying in the comments of that post. I absolutely love her Roman documentaries 💕

[@PolishWoolf]

You should review some American WW2 movies in a similar way. I can't stand many of those 'historical' movies. No research, just plain cinema cliches.

[@mrjones5636]

which one exactly?

[@sopota6469]

@@mrjones5636 Fury. The first tank fight is pure nonsense, you can make easily a 10 min video about that scene. And thank god I almost forgot the ending...

[@richardblackmore9351]

I like Alison Weir’s mention in her book the Wars of the Roses of how far the opposed royal families had to go to get commoners to care or participate in the wars. York became particularly infamous at the time as a city that remained impartial and entirely uninterested, and had to be invaded by each side several times for them to even participate in the war.

[@EweTubism]

I live in Scotland and have been part of the "Yes" side of the independence campaign. Not once did I hear this film mentioned in the literature or discussions surrounding the issue. Xenophobes exist in the "Yes" side (although I didn't meet any but I believe they exist), for sure, but the issues for me and the majority more often than not surround sovereignty, lack of connection between what central government wants and what the Scottish people/government wants, and other political issues (the Brexit results are a good example of that). Those who want Scottish independence don't hate the English, generally. In fact the "Yes" campaign reached out to many English people that are also unhappy with political issues in England and offered them help in moving to Scotland for protection. I myself used to live in England and was treated appallingly as a disabled person by the system compared to how I am treated in Scotland. Who, by and large are far more understanding and empathetic. The "Yes" campaign also welcomed me with open arms and didn't care that I was 'English' (although I'm technically from Cornwall, so that might've helped). The Scottish independence issue was around before this film (the first meeting of The Scottish Constitutional Convention was in 1989), hence why Scotland received devolution and a national government (and compared to other devolved governments, a lot more power than the others). I feel you made this film way too important in relation to the discussion of Scottish independence... It's like saying the Frogpeople with their Pepe memes got Trump elected...

[@CommanderM117]

if your from Cornwall your not an English unless you ancestors are Anglo or Saxon Cornwall has Celtic roots so we see you as kin like Irish or welsh.

[@EweTubism]

@@CommanderM117 I know but my ancestry is a bit of a mystery, but I was born in Cornwall and so was my dad and I think his mum or dad was but not sure.

[@rossgrahame2312]

Totally exaggerated the role of this movie in term of its political influence. There’s Yes supporters I know who haven’t even seen this film and all the ones who have don’t care

[@CommanderM117]

@Plazmatron Whose this We last i check the majority of PM in power in England have had history in Scotland and the upper class and i am quarter English viking and Scottish so in the End Scotland Conquered You.

[@herecomesthatboy1961]

'Xenophobes in the yes campaign are few and I never met any... but also by and large the English are less understanding and empathetic than Scottish people.' Got it. And yes, if you're from Cornwall, you're very much Enlgish.

[@ronaldfrechette2045]

My favorite bit is The Battle of Stirling Bridge and its lack of a bridge.

[@hariman7727]

There are also a number of other reasons got the vote for Scottish independence was taken. Not the least of which is the overreach of the European Union bureaucracy. I do agree that accurate history and accurate representation of History is needed. But that also includes reasons for a vote.

[@crazychameleon563]

Never in that video did he say it was the only reason but he said it was a major contributing factor and that's wrong. I honestly don't know how correct that was but considering the utter bullshit that was flying around from BOTH sides over the brexit vote I really wouldn't be surprised.

[@userdetails1]

14:52 Here's another- notice the flail weapon the statue is holding (used in the movie by Wallace to execute one of the nobles), historians believe these weren't ever used in battle for practicability reasons (as much chance of hitting yourself with it than the person you're fighting).

[@nickmattio3397]

“YYAAAAAAAAGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!! >8•O...WHiCH ONE OF YOU BAHSTADS ATE ME MEATBALL SUB?!?!”-William Wallace

[@TheKingTywinLannister]

Good old times when faking history did not involve having a lot of black guys as important figures in Europe

[@CrankCase08]

Very good point. These days, Wallace's wife Murron would also be played by a black woman, in order to fool the gullible masses into believing they've always been here.

[@michaelrodger]

Huh?

[@godzillavkk]

And why have I never seen this?

[@Daniel-pg9qh]

Except that doesn't happen? I bet you can't even name three movies.

[@godzillavkk]

That’s true.

[@mikulasnevidal5032]

13:29 that wiggling axe XD

[@TheMoviesWithMike]

It was still entertaining, plus this is basically Scottish Patriot with a downer ending , either way Gibson Screaming Freedom is awesome

[@LittleMacscorner]

Oddly enough....after watching your videos I realized the film was actually more accurate than I originally though it was, lol. But then, I NEVER watch a movie and assume it is historically accurate.

[@markessex2194]

Loved every minute of both the first episode and this second part.. Your judgment towards this story is worthy of a massive round of applause, for your divulgence into bringing the truth to the forefront on this part of English/Scottish History is upmost in showing the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Sign me up for more, a real gem of a blog

[@msmith42001]

6:58 Abe Simpson. Dynamite drop in man.

[@Hammerhead547]

Edward Longshanks didn't kill Peirs Gaverston (Edward II's best friend and supposed lover) because little eddie and piers were both small children at the time of the first scottish rising. That actually happened almost thirty years later when Hugh Dispenser had him kidnapped and murdered because he was jealous of gaverston's close relationship with the king.

[@sircurtisseretse3297]

Yeah, the guy who got thrown out the window is based on Piers Gaveston. But Gaveston came later, as you rightly say. Some people think that the notion that Edward, Prince of Wales/Edward II was gay started with the film Braveheart. I can refute this because I first read about it in a French book in 1969.

[@mekiunsw7479]

Who accepts Hollywood movies as 100% accurate?

[@B88-h6n]

There is just a tiny difference between 100% accuracy and 0.001% accuracy. Most people go 70ish. Not all true, but more or less.

[@coryfice1881]

White nationalists.

[@ipsumcontumelia6973]

Americans

[@thehillbillygamer2183]

I thought that singing was realistic when longshank through his son's boyfriend out the window I mean come on I could see Longshanks doing that

[@dairallan]

That's a decent analysis of Braveheart's inaccuracies (maybe not detailed enough but there are just so many) but your conclusion is ludicrous. People in Scotland (and in general, there's always the odd nutter) don't hate the English and the Independence movement is not based on anti-English nationalism. It's based on a different things to different people but for most its about addressing a political imbalance where distant rulers fail to account properly for the needs of Scotland. Some people also want to stop subsidising the rest of the UK. Those two together are the bulk of the motivation. You're projecting issues with English Nationalism onto Scottish self-determination and its not accurate. You seem to be lacking in much knowledge about what Scotland is like and how Scottish people are motivated. I've never met anyone in Scotland who believes Braveheart is remotely accurate or who forms a worldview and opinion on English people based on it. Its just not reality One other thing - again I think from lack of knowledge - you claim the concept of freedom and national identity was not a thing in medieval Europe at this time. This is partially true but one of the main drivers of the change and the emergence of these ideas was the Declaration of Arbroath attributed to Robert Bruce and written in 1321. I think its actually a defense of the film that this concept should be heavily featured as it emerged from this period and this conflict.

[@14067913]

The Highlanders in 'Carry on up the Kyber', were a more accurate representation of the Scots; and that was played for laughs.