In 1999, Stewart Lee and Richard Herring mocked Braveheart’s laughable history lesson in a sketch on This Morning with Richard Not Judy. Krossa said: “The events aren't accurate, the dates aren't accurate, the characters aren't accurate, the names aren't accurate, the clothes aren't accurate – in short, just about nothing is accurate.”Įven upon its original release in 1995, reviews were full of references to its flagrant factual tinkering – mostly excused as Hollywood being Hollywood.

And a love affair between Wallace and Isabella of France (Sophie Marceau) is entirely fabricated, seemingly just so Gibson – mullet flowing, shirt off – can smooch with a French princess.Īs medieval historian and Braveheart detractor Sharon L.

Weapons and costumes are anachronistic (“They might as well have iPhones!” says historian and screenwriter Alex von Tunzelmann). More than any other historical film, it’s near impossible to talk about Gibson’s William Wallace epic outside of its many factual errors.ĭates, events, and characters are changed. The Battle of Stirling Bridge is missing the, erm, bridge.

Twenty-five years after Mel Gibson painted his face half-blue and pulled on a kilt (a good three centuries before they were the fashion in Scotland), the pervading idea about Braveheart is this: it’s bad history.

Is brave heart a true story