Posted: 2/5/2005 7:48:44 PM EDT
| Best movie ever. That is all. |
|
Well, if it had any sort of resemblance to history, other than haveing a character named "William Wallace" in it, it'd be better. I men, they did an ok job, but, for instance, There are no records of Wallace dressing up like a Pict. He wore armor, and, rode a horse in battle from most accounts. That being said, the movie rocked. I was just disappointed it wasn't a bit more accurate. |
The movie was great, but missed out on historical veracity. I do believe that the portrayal of the Bruce was fairly good on a metaphorical plane. But, let's get real: Wallace won the battle of Stirling (or Sterling) Bridge. They left out the bridge in the movie, intentionally, because portraying it accurately would have upped the budget. |
|
This will give you an idea what the battle was about: 'The Battle of Stirling Begins Among the many victories Wallace won, that at Stirling Bridge, on 11 September, 1297, is remarkable. Edward I, busy with continental politics, remitted John de Warrenne, Earl of Surrey and Sussex , and Hugh de Cressingham full power to repress any and all resistance; and for this purpose an army of 50,000 infantry (supposedly, but more likely 15-20,000), and a great body of horse, under their orders, marched through the south Lowlands in quest of Wallace, who was then beseiging Dundee with all the men that he could muster -- 10,000 in all. Wallace, quitting Dundee, crossed the Tay, and marched to dispute the passage of the river Forth, by which the English alone could penetrate into the more northern parts of the kingdom. Wallace positioned his men in the hills around a bridge crossing the Forth, north of Stirling. Not all the Scots felt confident about the confrontation. James Stewart approached the English warlord with an offer of peace. De Warrenne refused and his mounted knights began to advance across the narrow bridge. The bridge across the Forth near Stirling was then of timber, and stood at Kildean, half a mile above the present ancient bridge. It is described as having been so narrow that only two persons could pass along it abreast, yet the English leaders proposed to make 20,000 (though this number is disputed), foot and all their horse undergo the tedious operation of crossing it in the face of the enemy. Walter de Hemingford, Canon of Guisborough, in Yorkshire, records that a Scottish traitor who served the Earl of Surrey strenuously opposed this measure, and pointed out a ford at no great distance where sixty men could have crossed the stream abreast; but no regard was paid to his suggestions. Notwithstanding this superior force, Surrey was by no means anxious to meet Wallace, whose success in past encounters had won him a formidable name. Seeking to temporise, he dispatched two Dominican friars to Wallace, whose force was then encamped near Cambuskenneth Abbey, on the hill so well known as the Abbey Craig; thus both armies were within perfect view of each other, and separated only by a river, which there winds between green and fertile meadows. The request of the friars was brief -- that Wallace and his followers should lay down their arms and submit. "Return to thy friends", said Wallace, "and tell them we come here with no peaceful intent, but ready for battle, determined to avenge our wrongs and to set our country free. Let thy masters come and attack us; we are ready to meet them beard to beard." Enraged by this reply, many of the English knights now clamoured to be led on. This was exactly what Wallace and de Moray wanted....to make the English force come to them across the narrow bridge. It is recorded by English chroniclers that this is when the Scottish traitor, the Earl of Lennox, said to Earl Surrey, "Give me but five hundred horse and a few foot, and I shall turn the enemy's flank by the ford, while you, my Lord Earl, may pass the bridge in safety." Crossing the Bridge Surrey still hesitated, during which the grotesquely fat Hugh de Cressingham, tax-collector of Scotland for Edward said, "Why do we thus protract the war, and waste the King's treasure? Let us fight, it is our bounden duty." Surrey, contrary to good judgement, yielded, and by dawn of the day the English began to cross the bridge; Wallace heard the tidings with joy. When one-half of the Englishmen were over, Wallace advanced, having previously having sent a strong detachment to hold the ford referred to. The moment the Scots began to move, Sir Marmaduke Twenge, a knight belonging to the North Riding of Yorkshire, who, together with de Cressingham, led the vanguard of horse, displayed the Royal Standard amid loud cries of "For God and St. George of England!" and at the head of the heavily mailed horse made a furious charge up the slope upon the Scottish infantry, while their archers kept shooting fast and surely from the rear, and caused the English forces to waver and recoil. The battle tested Scots of Wallace's made a foil downhill charge towards the bridge; while in the meantime a masterly movement was executed by Sir Andrew de Moray, who by a quick detour got in between it and those who had already crossed the river, completely cutting off their retreat. Confusion ensued on the part of the English, and discipline was lost. Wallace, as soon as he saw the movement for intercepting their retreat achieved, pressed on with greater force. The half-formed columns of the English on the north bank of the river gave way, and many of the heavy-armed cavalry were driven into the river and drowned. The Old Stirling Bridge -- Parts Old Stirling Bridge Collapses Surrey, sought to retrieve the fortune of the day by sending across, at a moment when the bridge was open, a strong reinforcement with his own banner; but, unable to form amid the recoiling masses of their own infantry, they only added to the confusion and slaughter, being assailed on every side by Scottish spearmen (probably schiltrons). The schiltrons, (prounounced skil-trons) are agreed by most historians to have been first used successfully at Falkirk, not at Stirling. But it is likely that the units, untrained as yet, were already in existence to use against the overwhelming numbers of English mounted warriors and knights. The basic schiltron was a mass of Scottish spearmen, three rows of spearmen deep, wielding unusually long 12 foot spears in tight formations such as oval rings or box shaped infantry units. The oncoming charge of the heavy or light cavalry would not be able to break the tightly packed ranks of spearmen and the horses were usually impaled by the spears. Before long the knight was pulled easily from his mount and slaughtered by the Scots on the battlefield. This ingenious invention is credited to William Wallace himself. At the moment Surrey's reinforcement was on the bridge, it parted and crashed into the Forth under the weight and strain of battle. This collapse, of which their are several versions, was a catastrophe to the English, together with the passage of the river by a body of Scots at the ford, when they fell on Surrey's rear, decided the victory for the Scots. A large number of English were drowned in attempting to cross the stream. The treacherous Scottish barons who served in Surrey's ranks -- one of whom was the Earl of Lennox -- now threw off the mask, and, with their followers, joined in the pursuit, when the flight became, as usual in those days, a scene of barbarous slaughter. It was common for the winning force to try to ride down as many retreating enemy soilders as possible and to put them to the sword. What we would often think of as "chivalrous" knightly warfare, was in actuality, some of the most brutal and bloody hand to hand combat ever practised to a high art by men of any era. Surrey, after making a final attempt to rally his beaten soldiers in the Torwood, on being assailed by Wallace again, resumed his flight to Berwick, and thence sent to his master the news of his humiliating defeat.' From: members.aol.com/skyelander/stir2.html |
I really liked Braveheart, but I think Patriot was a big disapointment. I like it until just after the rescue of oldest son. Then the two love stories turn it into more of a love story than a portrayal of the colonial militia and guerilla warfare. I was hopng for a darker movie. I love when Longshanks threw out sassyshanks  out of the window.Final point is I own Braveheart, but not Patriot. That overweight, egotistical, flamboyant, nonhighspeed, with the big hat(not to be confused with Jamariqui,spelling?) French officer was annoying. Some things with the French never change. |
| From what I've read about the real William Wallace, he was 6'6" tall not a Mel Gibson shrimp. His real problem with the English started when he killed a couple soldiers in a drunken brawl. As a result he became an outlaw which eventually evolved into a hero as the english retailiated harshly. |
|
For all you naysayers...it is definetly one of the best. And I am a history major! I know, the inaccuracies drive me a little nuts too. But as a MOVIE, it is outstanding. I wish we could get a Gates of Fire movie, with none of the current hollywood pretty boys in it. Well, maybe Orlando Bloom as Alexandros. Just no Colin Farrel or Brad Pitt. |
Not to mention the "Battle of Stirling" was actually the "Battle of Stirling Bridge" Nope...no bridge. <shrug> ...but the Brits funneling to oblivion would have cost too much for the production. Furthermore, the slow meatgrinder of a narrow bridge doesn't have the same dramatic impact as a full force heavy cav charge <Wow!>. Usually I'm asshole about these things, but I give Braveheart a pass due to sheer heroic drama. It's in my top 25. |
