Realism

[Conner MacLeod]

As a movie viewer and a person interested in medieval warfare, I've come across certain questions for certain movies considered to be top-sellers or whatever. Recently, I took my first real look at the sword of William Wallace in Braveheart (I love both English and Scottish histories). I've seen the movie a bunch of times, but never really questioned the sword until I started to look at groups of swords and their evolution. The more I look at this sword, the more I wonder about how accurate it is. At the William Wallace museum in Scotland, a much different sword that is claimed to be Wallace's is on display. Finally, to be honest the Wallace sword in the movie almost looks like a continental sword from the 1400s rather than a Scottish proto-claymore of the 1100's. I don't know if any of you have seen this also, but here is a picture of the Wallace sword with some other large swords. It is #1513 (on the right)

http://www.darksword-armory.com/simg/018.jpg

[Plantagenet]

I agree. That one looks more like a 15th c. German two-hander. But of course the sword isn't the only historical inaccuracy in the film. However, I'd rather have Hollywood making historical (especially Medieval) films with errors than more shallow Sandra Bullock/Hugh Grant movies. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-grin2.gif

As for Wallace's sword, I'd guess it would look more like Robert the Bruce's 14th c. sword, which is supposedly owned by his descendant, the Earl of Elgin (current head of the Bruces), who claims it has been passed down through the Bruce line since: http://home.gci.net/~airloom/sword.jpg

The other sword usually attributed to the Bruce appears to be a much later creation (Highland Claymore with quillons). Tough to judge since two-handers generally weren't prevalent until the 15th c., but I'd guess the quillons mark it as later?

[Dillinger]

The sword is bad ass. Wallace is bad ass. Wallace + Sword = Ba-Ba-Bad to the Bone. The more serious question is: Where's the bridge?

[caspian]

Quote[/b] (Plantagenet @ Jan. 14 2004,16:58)]However, I'd rather have Hollywood making historical (especially Medieval) films with errors than more shallow Sandra Bullock/Hugh Grant movies. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-grin2.gif
No truer words have been said http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-grin2.gif

There was a rumor that the sword William Wallace/Mel Gibson used in the movie was forged in Sotheast Asia. If you really want to find out more, visit the Sword Forum (http://www.swordforum.com), its a great place to read and learn about swords. Ask the weapon smiths there, they'll probably give you a more professional answer and most are history buffs too. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif

[Legatus Maximus]

Well as a Englishmen i find the films inaccuracies laughable, as a film i loved it......

But in the context of the film, William does state that with his uncle he had travelled Europe, even to Rome So its not inconceivable that in his travels he could have purchased the Sword

[Plantagenet]

Quote[/b] (Legatus Maximus @ Jan. 15 2004,04:00)]Well as a Englishmen i find the films inaccuracies laughable, as a film i loved it......

But in the context of the film, William does state that with his uncle he had travelled Europe, even to Rome So its not inconceivable that in his travels he could have purchased the Sword
Good point. And while it wasn't a favorable portrayal of the English, I was impressed by Longshanks. A little more evil than he was in real life, but he certainly was imposing.

Of course they left out the fact that the Scots originally invited Edward to choose their king, and also that Edward II was betrothed to Margaret the Maid, thus giving him a claim to the throne. I believe it was that claim Edward I was pressing, although I'm not sure if the marriage ever took place (didn't she die on her way to marry Edward II)?

The biggest disappointment for me was that they show the English army marching onto the field in formation, but then the battle starts and they just run full-speed at the enemy for a chaotic melee. During the wars with the Scots, weren't the Enmglish perfecting the tactics they'd later use against the French? And where are the Scottish schiltrons?

And at the Battle of Stirling Bridge, where is the damn bridge? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-inquisitive.gif

[Count Alfred von Schlieffen]

Right http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-angry.gif And I didn't see no Yari Ashigaru and Battlefield Ninjas either

[The_Earl_of_Sussex]

Quote[/b] (Plantagenet @ Jan. 15 2004,09:11)]Good point. And while it wasn't a favorable portrayal of the English, I was impressed by Longshanks. A little more evil than he was in real life, but he certainly was imposing.
I think out of all the kings of England few were more Ruthless

He defeated the welsh and then move north against the Scots....even adding insult to injury stealing their beloved Stone of Scone.

[Plantagenet]

Quote[/b] (The_Earl_of_Sussex @ Jan. 15 2004,10:42)]
Quote[/b] (Plantagenet @ Jan. 15 2004,09:11)]Good point. And while it wasn't a favorable portrayal of the English, I was impressed by Longshanks. A little more evil than he was in real life, but he certainly was imposing.
I think out of all the kings of England few were more Ruthless

He defeated the welsh and then move north against the Scots....even adding insult to injury stealing their beloved Stone of Scone.
I was mainly referring to things like hurling his son's gay lover out the window. That story was actually about Henry I Beauclerc, and it was a rebel, not his son's partner.

Henry I was probably worse than Edward; imprisoned his own brother for 28 years until he died, annexing his Duchy; had his first cousin blinded, exiled, and stripped of his lands; mutilated the moneyers for debasing the coinage, etc. His brother William II Rufus was just as bad.

I think Edward took the Stone to make the point that from then on, the King of England was also King of Scotland, which was the same settlement that Henry II imposed on Ireland in 1172. Thereafter, the King of England was also Lord of Ireland. Maybe he thought if it worked there for 100 years, why not in Scotland? Funny then that it was a Scottish King who later united the two crowns... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-yes.gif

[Gregoshi]

Greetings and welcome to Legatus and The_Earl_of_Sussex. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

About accuracy in historical movies: there seems little excuse for some of the inaccuracies other than making the movie more exciting (in their opinion). Some inaccuracies are more critical than others. The possible inaccurate sword in probably unnoticed by 99.9% of the movie audience and therefore insignificant other than for scholarly debate. The over-evilization(?) of Longshanks is a more serious inaccuracy, while Ben Affleck coming over from America to save England from the Scottish upstarts is inexcusable http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink2.gif Er, sorry about that last bit. Anyway, I think I made my point...or did I have one?