Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > About the film Braveheart Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2 
Author Message
Roger Hooper




Location: Northern California
Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Likes: 1 page

Spotlight topics: 4
Posts: 4,393

PostPosted: Tue 27 Feb, 2007 4:09 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

George Hill wrote:
Roger Hooper wrote:
James Barker wrote:
George Hill wrote:
For the record, went did blue paint (woad) go out? 200? 500? 1000?


I am not sure the Scotts ever did the blue face woad thing, I know the Gaul’s did when the Romans invaded, 2nd c. BC


I think the woad was a Pict thing



The Picts were north of the wall, and north of the wall is Scotland, even if they didn't call it that then.... right?


That's true. I guess Scots are a mixture of Pict and Ulstermen? not sure Confused I think at that time, the people called Scots were living in Ireland.
View user's profile Send private message
Joel Whitmore




Location: Simmesport, LA
Joined: 25 Aug 2003

Posts: 342

PostPosted: Tue 27 Feb, 2007 5:51 pm    Post subject: Longbowmen         Reply with quote

Hisham Gaballa wrote:
Apart from the historical inaccuracy of the film, it was also coloured by Gibson's somewhat bizarre (to say the least) political ideas.

I remember reading somewhere that archers (i.e. 'longbowmen') were only just starting to appear in English armies at this stage and that Edward I had a large contingent of Gascon crossbowmen.

The least accurate thing about the film though was the armour worn by the English knights. At this stage most would have been wearing mail from head to toe with great-helms or kettle hats and with coats of plates on their torso. Gibson has them wearing some weird lamellar thing. i can only assume that someone in the costume department heard the words "coat-of-plates" and rather than doing some research (what! go into a library? Who needs to do that!) just imagined what a coat of plates looked like.


Edward did have a contingent of Welsh longbowmen at Falkirk where Wallace introduced his schiltrons. As a matter of fact a rather bloody fight broke out before the battle between the English soldiers and the recently conquered Welsh. Several priests were killed in the fray along with English and Welshmen. At this point in the campaign Edward could not engage Wallace and his supplies were running dangerously low. During the ruckus Longshanks' horse was spooked and kicked him, breaking several ribs. To avoid further violence, Edward ordered his army to move at at once. Early the next morning, quite by accident his scouts located Wallace's army near Falkirk. Wallace deployed his forces on a boggy ground. As was common in medieval warfare, the English knights charged without order and broke upon the 12-foot spears of Wallace's shiltrons. Edward finally gained control of the situation and held his calvary back while the bowmen ( both Gascon and Welsh longbowmen) rained arrows on the Scot formations. Finally, as men fell under the assault, gaps appeared in the shiltrons which the English horse broke through. Wallace was carried from the field in the rout wounded in the neck according to some sources.

Braveheart pulled much from Blind Harry's poem and changed much. Harry has The Bruce at the battle as depicted in the movie yet many sources place him miles from the battle. In Harry's poem Wallace actually comes upon Edward's second wife ( Marguerite of France) encamped in the forest and he implies a love affair with her! The reason Blind Harry is often cited, in spite of his many inaccuracies, is he supposedly had a copy of the now lost text of Wallace's life written Wallace's friend and copatriate John Blair.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
Lin Robinson




Location: NC
Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Likes: 6 pages
Reading list: 6 books

Posts: 1,241

PostPosted: Tue 27 Feb, 2007 6:11 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Roger Hooper wrote:
George Hill wrote:
Roger Hooper wrote:
James Barker wrote:
George Hill wrote:
For the record, went did blue paint (woad) go out? 200? 500? 1000?


I am not sure the Scotts ever did the blue face woad thing, I know the Gaul’s did when the Romans invaded, 2nd c. BC


I think the woad was a Pict thing



The Picts were north of the wall, and north of the wall is Scotland, even if they didn't call it that then.... right?


That's true. I guess Scots are a mixture of Pict and Ulstermen? not sure Confused I think at that time, the people called Scots were living in Ireland.


This is from some rather simple lecture material I use occasionally. The situation was actually a bit more complicated, but this gives you some idea of what the arrival of the Scots meant in the north of Britain:

SCOTLAND, LIKE IRELAND, WAS NEVER CONQUERED BY THE ROMANS. THE ROMANS ACTUALLY BUILT TWO FORTIFIED WALLS TO KEEP THE INHABITANTS OF SCOTLAND FROM OVERRUNNING THE SOUTH.

THE ORIGINAL INHABITANTS OF SCOTLAND WERE THE PICTS, WHO ARE A MYSTERIOUS PEOPLE ABOUT WHOM RELATIVELY LITTLE IS KNOWN. THEY LEFT NO WRITTEN RECORDS AND THEIR ORIGINS ARE UNKNOWN. THEY PROBABLY DISPLACED ANOTHER, MORE PRIMITIVE PEOPLE WHEN THEY ARRIVED IN SCOTLAND.

SOME TIME AROUND 400 AD THE SCOTS ARRIVED FROM NORTHERN IRELAND. THEY ESTABILSHED THEMSELVES IN THE SOUTHWESTERN AREA OF ARGYLL AND EXPANDED FROM THERE. THE PICTS FOUGHT HARD TO RETAIN CONTROL AND MANAGED TO SUBDUE THE SCOTS FOR SOME TIME, ALTHOUGH THEY WERE CONSTANTLY AT WAR AMONG THEMSELVES. THEY FINALLY UNTIED UNDER ONE KING IN THE EARLY 8TH C. AND FOR A TIME MANAGED TO SUBJUGATE THE SCOTS. THEN THE VIKINGS ARRIVED.

THE NORSE INVASION OF BRITAIN STARTED AROUND 829 AD. THIS WAS A UNITING FACTOR FOR SCOTS AND PICTS BUT THEY WERE DEFEATED BY THE NORSE ANY WAY. THE VIKINGS EVENTUALLY CONTROLLED THE FAR NORTH AND MUCH OF THE INNER AND OUTER HEBRIDES ALONG WITH THE ORKNEY ISLANDS. ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL OF THESE AREAS DID NOT RETURN TO THE SCOTTISH CROWN UNTIL THE MIDDLE OF THE 13TH CENTURY, AFTER THE DEFEAT OF THE KING OF NORWAY AT THE BATTLE OF LARGS IN 1263, ALTHOUGH THE ORKNEYS AND SHETLAND ISLANDS REMAINED IN DANISH HANDS UNTIL 1468.

Lin Robinson

"The best thing in life is to crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentation of their women." Conan the Barbarian, 1982
View user's profile Send private message
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team


myArmoury Team

PostPosted: Tue 27 Feb, 2007 6:34 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Lin Robinson wrote:
SCOTLAND, LIKE IRELAND, WAS NEVER CONQUERED BY THE ROMANS. THE ROMANS ACTUALLY BUILT TWO FORTIFIED WALLS TO KEEP THE INHABITANTS OF SCOTLAND FROM OVERRUNNING THE SOUTH.

Etc...


Lin,
Please do not post in all-capital letters. In internet communications, it's seen as shouting.

Everyone else,
Please don't include quotes from multiple people unless it's absolutely necessary. Thank you.

Happy

ChadA

http://chadarnow.com/
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
James Barker




Location: Ashburn VA
Joined: 20 Apr 2005

Posts: 365

PostPosted: Wed 28 Feb, 2007 6:14 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Thomas Watt wrote:
Randall Moffett wrote:
I thought a medieval bridge rom the 15th was still at stirling...... not the same one but closer than everything else in the movie....

RPM

There is a stone bridge "near" the site of the old one (I have a friend who lives not far from there)... the one at the time of the battle was wooden, and exact siting is not known.


Right it was a wood bridge not stone. Archeologist do think they have found the original site though, there is written evidence they used a Roman bridge as a base for the wood one and Roman stone trestles with wood pylons have been found under the water near the suspected site, there is a "Lost Worlds" episode on the history channel about William Wallace and the modern myths the movie created that showed all of this. Man do Scottish archeologists and historians hate that movie you could hear the contempt in their voice when they spoke about it. They also spoke about his likely educations, did a digital reconstruction of what his village looked like, and dug up evidence of trade with England (wool, pottery, dye, silk) from his time that negate the idea that Scotland was primitive or behind the times.

James Barker
Historic Life http://www.historiclife.com/index.html
Archer in La Belle Compagnie http://www.labelle.org/
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,698

PostPosted: Wed 28 Feb, 2007 9:33 am    Post subject: Re: Longbowmen         Reply with quote

Joel Whitmore wrote:
Edward did have a contingent of Welsh longbowmen at Falkirk where Wallace introduced his schiltrons.


There were Welsh longbowmen there, but weren't most of the longbowmen already English even at this stage? The newest books and papers no longer put that much emphasis on the Welsh, since Edward didn't seem to have considered them a particularly important contingent in his armies. Except if "important" can also mean "troublesome," that is.
View user's profile Send private message
Thomas Watt




Location: Metrowest Boston
Joined: 19 Sep 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 159

PostPosted: Wed 28 Feb, 2007 10:26 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

James Barker wrote:
Right it was a wood bridge not stone. Archeologist do think they have found the original site though, there is written evidence they used a Roman bridge as a base for the wood one and Roman stone trestles with wood pylons have been found under the water near the suspected site, there is a "Lost Worlds" episode on the history channel about William Wallace and the modern myths the movie created that showed all of this. Man do Scottish archeologists and historians hate that movie you could hear the contempt in their voice when they spoke about it. They also spoke about his likely educations, did a digital reconstruction of what his village looked like, and dug up evidence of trade with England (wool, pottery, dye, silk) from his time that negate the idea that Scotland was primitive or behind the times.

Yes, I can well imagine that they would cringe over the film, especially judging by the near-soccer-team rah-rah the movie seems to invoke among the more blue-collar Scots I've met. Thanks for the "lost worlds" tip -- I'll keep my eyes open for that one... I knew that the battlefield proper had been pegged pretty well (and nearby Bannockburn seems to be fairly well located as well) but had not heard that the bridge siting had been pegged down.
I have to say I enjoyed the movie, but not because it was to be a historical lesson...
plus, the movie sword of Wallace does not look much like the sword claimed to be his on display at the Wallace Monument (that sword more resembles a "lowlander" type sword hilt).

Have 11 swords, 2 dirks, half a dozen tomahawks and 2 Jeeps - seem to be a magnet for more of all.
View user's profile Send private message
Lin Robinson




Location: NC
Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Likes: 6 pages
Reading list: 6 books

Posts: 1,241

PostPosted: Wed 28 Feb, 2007 2:57 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

My belief, and I have had a few arguments with folks about this, is that the sword in the Wallace monument is probably not one carried by Sir. William Wallace. Lots of reasons for that view, most of which center on who Wallace was and how he fought with and led his troops. The movie sword does not appear to have been copied from any particular historic sword.
Lin Robinson

"The best thing in life is to crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentation of their women." Conan the Barbarian, 1982
View user's profile Send private message
Thomas Watt




Location: Metrowest Boston
Joined: 19 Sep 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 159

PostPosted: Thu 01 Mar, 2007 3:23 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Lin Robinson wrote:
My belief, and I have had a few arguments with folks about this, is that the sword in the Wallace monument is probably not one carried by Sir. William Wallace. Lots of reasons for that view, most of which center on who Wallace was and how he fought with and led his troops. The movie sword does not appear to have been copied from any particular historic sword.

haha, I'm not surprised, in fact some Scots still argue over this...
there is another "William Wallace Sword" (I forget location, but at a castle someplace in Scotland).
No real, complete provenance exists for either so far as I know, so I would not begin to argue for the authenticity of the one at the Monument.
Like a more modern, American hero, Jim Bowie, the story of the man and the blade meld together a lot of mythology and a few "hopefuls" for the real blade.

Have 11 swords, 2 dirks, half a dozen tomahawks and 2 Jeeps - seem to be a magnet for more of all.
View user's profile Send private message
Lennon R. Clotild





Joined: 06 Mar 2007

Posts: 11

PostPosted: Thu 08 Mar, 2007 12:24 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

The blue face paint was derived from celtic warrior traditions, and there is no evidence either supporting or completely ruling out it. When Gibson asked modern day Clan Wallace whether the Scottish warriors at that time wore face paint, the answer he received was "there's no reason to think they did not not wear face paint."
View user's profile Send private message
Lennon R. Clotild





Joined: 06 Mar 2007

Posts: 11

PostPosted: Thu 08 Mar, 2007 12:32 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Regarding the sword Wallace used (a Scottish claymore), it did in fact exist, though not until around the 16th or 17th century. So the historical Wallace would not have used such a weapon. Braveheart contains many such anachronisms (kilts, bagpipes, etc...) for the purpose of having the general public easily identify the Scottish character of Wallace and his soldiers.
View user's profile Send private message
Thomas Watt




Location: Metrowest Boston
Joined: 19 Sep 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 159

PostPosted: Thu 08 Mar, 2007 2:01 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Lennon R. Clotild wrote:
The blue face paint was derived from celtic warrior traditions, and there is no evidence either supporting or completely ruling out it. When Gibson asked modern day Clan Wallace whether the Scottish warriors at that time wore face paint, the answer he received was "there's no reason to think they did not not wear face paint."

The term "picts" was used by the Romans to describe the "painted people" of the North (Scotland). However scholars have argued endlessly about whether it is meant to describe paint or tattoos.

Wallace's sword (the Monument one, since I don't have info on the competing version of the sword) doesn't look like a traditional Scottish claymore...

I'm not certain how you would class it... but it certainly is different.

Have 11 swords, 2 dirks, half a dozen tomahawks and 2 Jeeps - seem to be a magnet for more of all.
View user's profile Send private message
Lin Robinson




Location: NC
Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Likes: 6 pages
Reading list: 6 books

Posts: 1,241

PostPosted: Thu 08 Mar, 2007 2:58 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

The grip and guards look like something from a later claymore and, in fact, the hilt and guards were replaced on three different occasions according to extant records. The two-handed sword, which is referred to as a claymore, was not in use in the 13th century and Wallace, who would have been on horseback a great deal of the time, could not have used such a long-bladed sword any way. There are lots of theories about the Wallace Monument sword, and many of them are that it was his sword. My personal theory, which has been published, is that it is not, and that the early records concerning "a Wallace sword" in all likelihood referred to an entirely different weapon.

By the way Leonard, are you referring to the movie sword or the sword in the monument?

Lin Robinson

"The best thing in life is to crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentation of their women." Conan the Barbarian, 1982
View user's profile Send private message
Thomas Watt




Location: Metrowest Boston
Joined: 19 Sep 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 159

PostPosted: Fri 09 Mar, 2007 2:26 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Lin Robinson wrote:
The grip and guards look like something from a later claymore and, in fact, the hilt and guards were replaced on three different occasions according to extant records. The two-handed sword, which is referred to as a claymore, was not in use in the 13th century and Wallace, who would have been on horseback a great deal of the time, could not have used such a long-bladed sword any way. There are lots of theories about the Wallace Monument sword, and many of them are that it was his sword. My personal theory, which has been published, is that it is not, and that the early records concerning "a Wallace sword" in all likelihood referred to an entirely different weapon.

By the way Leonard, are you referring to the movie sword or the sword in the monument?

Link or title of your publication on this...?
I'd enjoy reading it I'm sure and I promise not to criticise your scholarship.

Have 11 swords, 2 dirks, half a dozen tomahawks and 2 Jeeps - seem to be a magnet for more of all.
View user's profile Send private message
Lin Robinson




Location: NC
Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Likes: 6 pages
Reading list: 6 books

Posts: 1,241

PostPosted: Fri 09 Mar, 2007 3:41 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Tom...

I will send you a private email.

Lin Robinson

"The best thing in life is to crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentation of their women." Conan the Barbarian, 1982
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > About the film Braveheart
Page 2 of 2 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2 All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum






All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum