Re: Braveheart

[EoganmacL@aol.com]

Achbar is right, it's a great movie.  I like it tenfold more than Rob Roy
(and I _really_ liked Rob Roy).  It is more or less (or less) historical,
save two major points.
*****DO NOT READ IF YOU PLAN ON SEEING THE MOVIE******
#1 That I know of, Sir William never had a fling for the Princess.  That was
probably just thrown in as a romantic interest to make the movie more
user-friendly (after all, Murren didn't last but 10 minutes).  And as for
William fathering Edward III, I really don't think so.
#2 Bannockburn.  For one thing, it was a different Robert Bruce, son to the
one in the film, grandson of the leper, who lead the Scots to victory.  And
there was also 9 years between this battle and  Wallace's execution.  It's
understandable why they summed it up, though.  The movie was already three
hours long, and to add another generation of Bruces and 9 more years would be
overboard (woulda made a good sequel, though).  And they needed some closure
other than Wallace's death.
Bannockburn in the film was fought on the spur of the moment when Robert was
supposed to ride out and pay homage to the the English King (by this time Ed
II).  In real life it was planned for a year and was fought over Castle
Stirling.  It was a wonderful battle, one of the best in history, and if
anyone wants the full details of it, email me, and I'll tell you all about
it.

Those are the major things that I noticed.  Any other innacuracies that
anyone noticed?  Was Ed II really gay?  What about the Irish forces at
Falkirk?  I doubt they really switched sides, although I wouldn't put it past
them.  Any info?

Aye,
Eogan MacLaren