How Mel Gibson Created One of Hollywood’s Biggest Historical Lies
When Mel Gibson released Braveheart in 1995, the film quickly became a global hit and turned William Wallace into one of the most famous names in Scottish history.
The story of a simple man rising up against English rule captured audiences around the world, and the film went on to win five Oscars, including Best Picture. But historians have long pointed out that Braveheart plays very loosely with the truth.
The movie is packed with moments that are more legend than fact. One of the biggest problems is the way it shows the Battle of Stirling Bridge. In the film, Wallace leads his men across an open field, but the real battle in 1297 was very different.
The Scots used the narrow Stirling Bridge to their advantage, striking the English while they were crossing in small groups. The bridge’s collapse led to a major Scottish victory. By leaving out the bridge, the movie changes how the battle was actually won.
Another big invention is Wallace’s romance with Princess Isabella of France. In Braveheart, Isabella is shown as Wallace’s lover and is even suggested to be carrying his child. But history tells another story. Isabella was only 12 years old at the time and living in France. There’s no proof she ever met Wallace. This storyline was simply added for drama.
The costumes also take liberties with history. The Scots in the movie are seen charging into battle in kilts, but that’s completely inaccurate.
Kilts didn’t appear until centuries later. The real Scottish fighters used disciplined tactics like the schiltron formation, not the ragtag image shown in the movie. Even Wallace’s background is misrepresented. Instead of a poor peasant, he was actually a member of the lower nobility who owned land and held obligations as a vassal.
The film also simplifies and exaggerates the personalities of English rulers. Edward I is shown as nothing but cruel, while his son Edward II is portrayed as weak and mocked in a way that many historians argue is unfair.
On top of that, Gibson added touches like Wallace and his men painting their faces blue, a nod to the ancient Picts, who had disappeared centuries before Wallace’s time.
Most importantly, Braveheart makes Wallace look like the single leader of Scotland’s fight for freedom. In truth, he wasn’t alone.
Figures like Andrew Moray played a vital role, especially at Stirling Bridge, but are left out of the spotlight. This changes the picture of what was really a collective effort into a one-man story.
Mel Gibson himself has admitted that his film is far from accurate. While promoting the Blu-ray release in Edinburgh, he told reporters, “Wallace wasn’t as nice as the character we saw up there, we romanticised him a bit. Actually he was a monster. He always smelled of smoke, he was always burning people’s villages down. He was like what the Vikings called a ‘berserker’.”
The film has also faced criticism beyond historical mistakes. Some reviewers accused it of racism and homophobia, and of creating damaging stereotypes.
Still, Gibson defended his choices, saying this kind of embellishment was necessary for storytelling. “We kind of shifted the balance a bit because someone has got to be the good guy against the bad guy; that’s the way that stories are told,” he said.
His comments stirred debate in Scotland. Historian Fiona Watson, who wrote a biography of Wallace, argued that Gibson’s new view was just as misleading as his original film. “After 15 years, he’s giving us the other version of the myth, the knuckles dragging across the floor one, which is equally untrue. The real man surely lies in between,” she explained.
Even with all its inaccuracies, Braveheart left a lasting mark. It reignited worldwide interest in Scotland’s past and gave new life to its national identity. But for historians, the film remains an example of how Hollywood can shape and distort history for the sake of entertainment.
Have something to add? Let us know in the comments!
