Braveheart: Fact or Fiction

In response to the popularity of the blockbuster Braveheart, Scottish historian Ewan J. Innes replied, "One of the most common questions I'm asked is how factual Mel Gibson's portrayal of William Wallace was in the 1995 film Braveheart. The short answer is that is hasn't an iota of fact in it." Continuing Innes explained, "It's a good film, just don't take it as fact... For example, Isabella cannot have been carrying Wallace's child (and presumably Edward III) as she was in France at the time and did not arrive in England until two years after Wallace's death. She could also therefore have not warned him at York (which Wallace didn't attack anyway)."
Another fault in the films historical accuracy is its interpretation of the battle of Falkirk. While the film conveys a much more heroic approach, in actuality "Wallace escaped the field but the majority of the Scottish army did not. Bruce was not at the battle as he was in Carrick in the southwest at the time."
Following the Battle of Falkirk, Wallace "resigned as Guardian and was sent on a diplomatic mission to France and Rome. He did not return until after the Scottish surrender in 1302." Yet, another example of the film's skew on historical events. Although Braveheart cannot serve as sufficient history source, the film's themes of freedom, romance, and integrity uphold its popularity. While, historians due tend to find flaws in th films accuracy, its only fair to note that the movie does open with the line "[history has been] written by those who have hanged heroes," which strikes wonder.