The Patriot (Braveheart in Revolutionary War mode)

WARNING: This article may contain spoilers.

Five years after the success of Braveheart, Mel Gibson once again is cast in another historical epic, this time set in the Revolutionary War and directed by Roland Emmerich, known for Stargate, Independence Day, and that terrible 1998 version of Godzilla. This film is a heavily fictionalized account of The American War for Independence, with it's pro-American propaganda and the exaggerated evil of the British. Is the film worth watching despite it's historical inaccuracies, or are Mel Gibson and the filmmakers repeating the success of Braveheart? Let's examine the case of The Patriot. For my research, I used more than Wikipedia, I watched Youtube videos and read articles.

Deja Vu?

The movie opens in 1776 South Carolina, when widowed war veteran Benjamin Martin and his children were visiting Charlestown to vote for the support of the Continental Army.  As a veteran of the French and Indian War and a widowed father, he is reluctant to go to war against British. But his oldest son Gabriel has joined the Continental Army without his permission. After Gabriel was wounded in battle, the British, led by Colonel William Tavington, has taken the family hostage, arrests Gabriel so they can execute him for being a spy, destroyed his home, and has murdered one of the children for trying to free Gabriel. After freeing Gabriel, Benjamin decides to form a militia against the British.

If this sounds familiar, that's because this movie pretty much recycles the same plot from Braveheart, the common family man who wants peace in his life but hell broke loose when an empire destroys his life and he decides to go to war. Rather than making fresh insights into The Revolutionary War, the screenplay from Saving Private Ryan writer Robert Rodat relies on traditional Hollywood cliches you have seen so many times before.

The Real Benjamin Martin

The character of Benjamin Martin is a composite character of Revolutionary War veterans, such as Daniel Morgan, and Andrew Pickens. But the figure I'm most familiar with is Francis Marion, known by his nickname as "Swamp Fox". The family depicts Benjamin Martin as a genuine family man who loves his children and gets along with the film's black characters. Unfortunately, Francis Marion is nothing like Benjamin Martin. While a pioneer in modern guerrilla warfare, he was also a slave owner, a serial killer to Native Americans, and he has raped his female slaves. Francis Marion is a completely different character than the squeaky clean Benjamin Martin.

The Exaggerated Evil of the British

While the British weren't saints during The American War for Independence, they are far from the bloodthirsty monsters as depicted in the film. The film has a clear cut good vs evil story in which the Americans were pure while the British are mindless, thoughtless murderers. Even if they are not killing people, the film uses the old snobby Brit stereotype in some scenes. The most controversial scene in the film is when the British lock up a group of innocent American civilians into a church and they burned it. Not only is there no written record that the British has burned a church filled with innocent people during the Revolutionary War, but the attack was actually taken from a Nazi massacre that was committed in 1944. In the actual incident, the Nazis has rounded up French villagers into a church and and were blown to bits. If this movie wants the British to be the villains, than they should have depict the atrocities they have committed instead of recycling stuff from a different party and a totally different time period.

I didn't cover everything about the film's faithfulness to actual history but I did give you a taste of the movie's pandering pro-American propaganda. But hey, what can you expect from the creators of Independence Day? This film heavily recycles so much material from other historical epics that it's obvious that the filmmakers were only pandering to the Braveheart crowd rather than making a powerful statement about The American Revolution and the film is also biased to the opposite party. Despite some well made battle scenes and good performances, The Patriot is a run of the mill war movie.     

Braveheart (Hollywood's bastardization of Scottish history)

WARNING: This article may contain spoilers.

I shall tell you about the real William Wallace. Mel Gibson and screenwriter Randall Wallace will say I am a liar. But Hollywood movies were written by those who have hanged historical figures. Although the film was based on The First War of Scottish Independence between 1296 to 1328, all the historical events depicted in the film were completely false. That's maybe because Gibson's intention was to create a myth about 13th century Scottish rebel, William Wallace, a man who declares war against the English oppression of Scotland. Unfortunately, I can't cover everything and I apologize if I ignored anything major. I have used YouTube videos, Wikipedia pages on the film and it's historical figures, TV Tropes, and looked at lists of historically inaccurate films. Let's take a look on the many liberties this film has taken on history.

The first inaccuracy that comes to mind is actually the title. Braveheart is not the nickname of William Wallace, it was the nickname of the Scottish king Robert the Bruce. But this is only the beginning of the film's countless inaccuracies.

England's occupation of Scotland

The movie has already started and already the film did not to it's research. It starts off at 1280 and after the King of Scotland has died without male heirs, Edward I of England has taken over Scotland and claimed the throne himself. There is so much wrong, I don't know where to begin. For starters, King Alexander III of Scotland has died in 1286, not 1280. This led to Scotland's political turmoil over the crown and throne until Edward I's invasion in 1296.

I also like to point out that Edward never granted prima noctis, meaning he never let his nobles use peasant brides as sex objects on their first night as married women. There is no written evidence that prima noctis even happened at all.

Who is William Wallace?

Apart from his military campaign and his execution in 1305, very little evidence of the real William Wallace has survived, so no one knows who he really is. Much of the film's information on William Wallace was inspired by a poem written in the 15th century by Blind Harry. Much like the movie, Blind Harry's poem was meant to mythologize Wallace and his protest against the English occupation. Combine Blind Harry's poem and Randall Wallace's screenplay, you have a William Wallace who is depicted a Moses figure for the Scottish.

As the movie opens, William Wallace was a peasant who was motivated by the murders of his father, brother, and wife to lead Scotland to freedom from England. In real life, he was actually a son of a minor noble and there's no written records that suggest that his family was murdered, nor is there written evidence that he was married. I also like to point out that in real life Wallace never fell in love with Princess Isabella of France nor did they ever met each other like they did in the movie. If they did, then William Wallace would be considered a creepy pedophile because Isabella was actually about 10 years old when he was executed in 1305. 

        

 The Real Longshanks (aka Edward I of England)

The movie portrays Edward I as a heartless, cruel, homophobic, and tyrannical monster. While the real Longshanks was a brutal conquer at best and an Anti-Semite at worst (he expelled the Jews in 1290 and yes that did happen), he was far from the royal ugly dude as depicted in this film (Yes dudes, that's a Bill and Ted reference). Some believed that he was England's best kings due to his revamping England's legal system and, as mentioned before, he never had his nobles be sexual predators by law (aka prima noctis). He also never threw his son's gay boyfriend out of a window after he heard news of Wallace's invasion of England.

The movie also claims that Edward was pagan while in reality he was a Christian (like most people in Medieval Europe). And the real reason why Longshanks invaded Scotland in the first place was because he was asked by the nobles to mediate during Scotland's crisis over the crown and throne. He agreed but on the condition that Scotland should be on England's authority and that's how the war started.

Wallace's Battles Against England

While the iconic battle sequences were well made, there are more inaccuracies. For starters, the Scottish never wore kilts in the 13th century. Kilts wouldn't be invented until the late 16th century. The Scottish also didn't wear war paint in the 13th century either because the last time they did that was back in the ancient Roman times and were identified as Picts.

William Wallace's most victorious battle was The Battle of Stirling Bridge in 1297. In real life, the battle took place on a bridge and was used to ambush English troops. In the movie, it took place in an open field and the battlefield wasn't even called Stirling Bridge, just Stirling. There is actually a behind the scenes story for this. From what I've read, they were going to film the bridge but they changed the location to a field for budgetary reasons.

After Wallace was knighted for his victory at Stirling, he decides to invade England and attacks the city of York. While the real Wallace has invaded England, he never attacked York, nor did he decapitate the Duke (who turns out to be the Longshanks' nephew) and sent it as a gift to Longshanks. After the attack at York, the English and the Scots fought at Falkirk in 1298. During the battle, Scottish nobles, including Robert the Bruce betrayed Wallace and the Scots lost. In real life, Robert the Bruce never betrayed Wallace. He's known for switching sides but he never did that to Wallace.

The Execution of William Wallace

The actual execution of William Wallace was far more gruesome as depicted in the film and that's 9 years before Mel Gibson directed The Passion of the Christ. I might warn you that this section of this article is not suitable for the squeamish and for the people who are eating. Your discretion is advised. In real life, Wallace was stripped naked and dragged by horse, was castrated, disemboweled, hanged, his entrails were burned, and was finally dismembered. His head was piked in London bridge. The movie ignores much of the graphic details probably because the movie won't get an NC-17 rating from the MPAA.

In conclusion, while I still enjoy the movie for it's entertainment value, I can acknowledge and accept that Braveheart is a false depiction of Scottish history. If you wanna learn about the real history of Scotland and William Wallace, it's best to use other sources on the subject instead of Hollywood movies, which were meant for entertainment rather than telling what really happened.