AM usually is striving for the measured, purely observant tone as regards historiography so having him rant in absolute disdain of this movie is hilarious and a nice change of pace in binging through the whole channel.
Superb stream, correcting many appalling historical inaccuracies in the ‘Braveheart’ film. Apoplectic Majesty’s rage was a joy to behold. It is sad that Hollywood, and the ego’s involved, feel it necessary to misrepresent historical events on such a scale.
@@benisrood Yes, many people here in Australia have a difficult relationship with Mel. They’re hugely proud of his achievements as the first really big Aussie movie star, but they’re somewhat perplexed at his statements on various groups and other issues. Usually they’ll say”oh he’s gone nuts…what a shame!”
Thank you to Michael Fox for your Super Sticker, and to Page Unknown, Jacob & Dee's BOR for your Super Chats. I'll read them out on the next stream having copied them from the Live chat replay. Hopefully YT will actually fix the Super Chat feature by then.
The CZcams channel Real Crusades History did several podcasts/videos many years ago on Kingdom of Heaven going over the issues with it. Basically it's a weird playing out of Kantian philosophy set in an anachronistic christendom. They might've also done one on braveheart but I don't remember. Might be well worth doing yourselves regardless.
oh Kingdom of heaven has the same problem as Braveheart where one side is seen as wholly evil and the other is seen as wholly good who being treated cruelly by the evil side.
That so-called Hollywood " historical" movies, aren't historically accurate is matter of fact for some Americans. Take Saving Ryan for example, that ANY American president would send an elite squad of American soldiers in the middle of a fluid battle in a World War II to rescue one American Soldier for ANY reason is ridiculous. But given that Steven Spielberg directed it, made it a good movie. As a former U.S. soldier I can attest to this fact.
I'm American, the story of Saving Private Ryan is a metaphor for the American involvement in the European front. Why are all these Americans dying at D Day for a continent of other warring nations? The soldiers themselves, as usual in all wars, had zero say in the mission but did their damnedest to save Ryan and eventually win the war. In the same way Apocalypse Now was about the insanity of the Vietnam War, SPR is how the Americans thought of the European front. Most Americans don't realize that before Pear Harbor few Americans didn't think it was our war but the Japanese made it personal by attacking Pearl Harbor and so the Americans decided to officially join the Allies. I don't know why people think it's a true story, you're right, too many Americans think it's a true story. It is however still one of the most accurate WW2 films on many other levels.
@@chickencharlie1992 I appreciate the validation, the only instance in the ETO that is even remotely like saving private Ryan is toward the end of the war General Patton ordered a company of his forces to rescue a officer who was related to one of his officers, from a POW camp. The mission was a bloodbath and a failure. The press who was actively against Patton, because he was vehemently against the communists had a field day with the incident to blacken his image. The incident is related in the book the Patton papers, written by his adjutant around 1960. This book should be taken with a grain of salt however, because his adjutant was a creature of the deep state and censored most of Patton's criticisms of the communists and of his fellow Generals, especially Eisenhower.
46:40 - It's because the American culture which Mel Gibson's films appeal to is descended from the Borderers, who were bitter enemies of both their own nobility (who as lords of a war-torn borderland were notoriously cruel) and the English administration, who tried everything to pacify them and drive out this culture moulded by centuries of perennial war and raiding. Half of the American right-wing coalition consists of these people, which is why the right in that country is so inept at using government force, half of them are essentially anarchists in their basic worldview.
I don't have an issue if you're upfront in declaring this to be an historically inspired fantasy film. Instead you have that ridiculous line at the beginning of the film: "Historians from England will claim that I am a liar, but history is written by those who've hanged heroes".
@@ApostolicMajestyyes it had no pretense to be historically accurate. Netflix did a movie called Outlaw King that portrayed the efforts of Robert the Bruce... I wonder how much more accurate its depiction was and if that has much of a role to play in its lack of success (though who knows, maybe it will be appreciated in time to come).
Excellent stream. Thanks for all your work. Personally I like the free flowing nature of the streams delivery, it can make the listener feel involved rather than being a passive receiver of a tightly scripted film.
Excellent stream once again. You mention other channels have fancy visuals and scripts, but their absence is not diminishing in the slightest to the value of what you are doing. There is something about a conversational style without distracting animations or whatnot that can actually be preferable.
This was quite enjoyable, I'm glad I found this channel. I have now watched this video and your video on Kingdom of Heaven. I think I mostly like these sorts of videos for the discussion of the actual history (not appearing in these films, haha) that gets discussed, so I look forward to listening to more of your videos as that seems to be what this channel is (i.e. NOT movie reviews). I did have a couple comments. First, I think you are overthinking the choice to leave out the other guy (who's name I can't remember just now) who helped lead the scottish forces (and died) at sterling bridge. This is a hollywood movie, hollywood movies are lowest common denominator affairs and too many characters risk confusing "general audiences". Did you NEED two dudes leading the Scotts to tell the story? Who is the other guy? Do we need a backstory for him? What are his motivations? They have only got a couple hours, so you either make him a sidekick (hell, they could have just given his name to Large McRedhead, the childhood friend), or you cut it. So they cut it. Hollywood generally makes dumb movies where they dont' expect much from audiences. I like Braveheart (and Patriot too, but that is almost entirely because there just aren't many war films set in the 18th century, and I love me some muskets and 18th cent uniforms, movie itself is godawful (with the minor exception of Mr. Evil Dragoon Captain, that character is delightfully cheesy)), it's dumb, but fun. I commiserate with the frustration of people voting SNP in solidarity with a cartoonish fantasy version of history, but if braveheart was the reason they voted a certain way, would they have been likely to have had a more nuanced or thoughtful politic stance in its absence? Reject Democracy, Return to Monachy! :D And simplification for general audiences is even true in really great films like Master and Commander which you mention. You say at one point that in that they changed the American Vessel to a French vessel in order to appease an American audience. I think that is only part of it. If you recall, Russel Crowe makes a speech about the royal navy being the last defense of Britain against the all conquering armies of Napoleon. Would the average movie goer care or feel more engaged if the movie explained that the crew was fighting an American ship because the Americans had sided with the French because they were upset about the British impressing US sailors into military service? (yes, it is more complicated than this, but it WAS a major reason for the conflict and kinda undermines the audience-character relationship when the protagonists represent the globe spanning super power and they are hunting down the plucky underdogs who have the audacity to complain when their sailors get habitually kidnapped and forced to fight for said global superpower) So, yeah, they went with Napoleon bad m'kay? And hand waved the distinctly American vessel issue. (Though of course you were entirely correct in the point you were making when you mentioned this that the French were portrayed as enemies, not villains.) Oh, last thought. I am not sure Americans are as anti-nobility as Columba (I think it was Columba, maybe it was both of you...) seems to think. I might be wrong, but I don't think Americans (In case it isn't obvious by my manner of speaking (writing?) I am one)) really care. American's seem to love downton abbey as much as you Brits do. And i've never heard anyone complain about a film or book because of the class of the protagonist. Of course, I DO admit it is a common trend in US media. I suspect this has more to do with unfamiliarity with the entire concept than a real demand for a commoner protagonist. Probably another example of hollywood trying to avoid confusing its audience. ( Lower nobility is a totally alien concept to most people, they know king/count/princess are Noble titles, but "WTF is gentry" is a common american reaction)
Absolutely everything holllywood produces is pushing a narrative & creating a false mythology to obscure the real human experience. Sort of like in 1984 where it talks about who controls the past controls the future or whatever. I've noticed over the course of my life a constant theme of making the Englishman the '"bad guy" in every story. Even when the Englishman is the good guy, he's still portrayed as some kind of menace. The defaming of the English is definitely a thing in popular culture, though it may be subtle enough most maybe don't notice it.
One way to consolidate a new order is to demonise the previous one, making the new one look better by contrast. But why do this when Britain became an American vassal willingly? Maybe it's only old-school Britain that they're demonising.
A good example of this is Pocahontas, in which the town leader is pirtrayed as a bloodthirsty villain who persecuted the Indians, the reality is that they murdered him and the entire town who were barely surviving the winter.
This, along with The Da Vinci Code, is one of my favorite films to watch purely for the joy I get from picking up on all the nonsense and propaganda. Excellent work lads.
AM getting ridiculously mad about isabella of france was hysterically good fun. I feel like there's a lot of truck-appeal potential in doing more streams about popular historical films that just drop the ball terribly
Don't you know Bravehart and The Patriot is the same movie. Let me explain. 1. Mel Gibson wants to get married raise a family on a farm in the country side. 2. People ask for him to fight the controlling evil English who are seeking havoc on there land. 3. Mel Gibson refused so he can live the perfect life with his growing family farm in the country side. 4. English kills Mel Gibson's family 5. Mel Gibson seeks revenge and single handily brutally slays a entire English regiment. 6. Mel Gibson joins the fight for freedom. 7. Mel Gibson becomes the greatest commander anyone ever sees. Should I continue or are they the same movie?
To make matters worse for American schools we watch Pride, Prejudice, and Zombies to get an idea of what Victorian England was like. The schools were constantly replacing classic peaces of literature for cringe marden peaces of "art" to keep the 5 second attention spans of the students engaged. It never worked.
We weren't showed Braveheart in school, our history teacher told us it was a load of rubbish. I vote SNP because independence is the easiest way to get rid of the Tories and Westminster.
We watched Braveheart every day in American school - it was part of the Mel Gibson socialist anti-British agenda our evil woke purple-haired lesbian trans teachers forced us to learn (down with George III!!!)
1:37:00 they don't show the gore, but they do show enough to see Gibson/Wallace is disinbowled and cut. Remember also the midget jester play acts the same
Ulliam Uallace came to America. I been trying to figure out who he really was. I don't think you even know. I think his father had the same name, but they were Lions. Marion was probably a medicine woman from America.the Dragon families. Too many of us have royal blood, so Prima noctra sure seems plausible.
@@thesmilinggun-knight9646 Machiavelli is the one who got us in our present predicament. Both Stalin and Hitler used Machiavelli's prince as a guide. Not to mention our elites who aren't stupid enough to admit to it.
This entertaining discussion raises the question of whether or to what extent factual accuracy and appeal to 'modern audiences' should be traded off. Unfortunately 'modern audiences' seem poorly educated and film-makers pander to that. Worse than that, is the deliberate distortion of history to serve a contemporary political narrative.
William Wallace never earned the moniker "Braveheart." It was the name given to Robert the Bruce, a Scottish hero who is wrongly portrayed as a traitor in the film. From the very beginning, nothing about the film's timing and its sequence of events makes any historical sense. The film opens in 1276, at which point in reality King Alexander III of Scotland was still alive and the English weren't yet making much of a fuss over Scotland. The rebellion began in 1296. Additionally, in reality King Edward I did not die at the same time as William Wallace as the film suggests, he died several years later. King Edward II did not marry Isabella until after Wallace's death, at which time she was 13, considerably younger than the 29-year-old Sophie Marceau who played her in the film. Isabella of France was 13 at the time of Wallace's death and not yet even married to Edward II. So while the film uses her as a love interest, she didn't know William Wallace and he did not father the future king of England, Edward III. Interestingly, Isabella did actually eventually lead a rebellion against her husband with her lover, but that was much later and was to ensure that her son would take the throne. William Wallace comes from humble means. The nobles refer to him as a commoner, his burlap outfits are covered in dirt, and the roof of his house is made of straw. This imagining, however compelling, is fiction. The Wallaces were a longstanding and noble family and William's father, Malcolm, was a knight. William would have had an excellent education and military training. Oh, and he wasn't a Highlander, either. He was from the Lowlands, of the same Anglo-Norman descent as his English rivals. When you think of Scotland, you think of kilts. It's okay, its a cultural phenomenon that has become inseparable from the country. Only thing is, they are far more modern than movies like Braveheart would have you believe. Kilts did not become a significant clothing item for Scottish people until the seventeenth century. That's a solid 300 years after William Wallace was killing people. King Edward II was not A gay, the modern concept of homosexuality simply did not exist in the thirteenth century. Edward II was incredibly and disastrously biased towards his male companions, but their intimate relationships would not have been questionable at the time. Instead his people were more riled up at Edward's tendency to give titles to non-noble people. Nor is it likely Edward was disgusted by his wife. The film portrays him as unable to conceive, but in reality he fathered four children with her. Indeed, he was considered by many to be the perfect prince. He was intelligent, athletic, and had a flair for the showmanship that the English monarchy was known for. Gaveston did not die falling from a window. No close friend of Edward II is ever said to have died in this manner. blue face paint worn by William Wallace and his compatriots in Braveheart is, unfortunately, also well off the real Scottish timeline. It was a tradition from the 4th and 5th centuries that the Highlanders would likely not have used. But it's not just the battle makeup that's off base. There is no evidence to suggest that the Scottish Highlanders were sporting mullets with braids, dreads, and little fur attachments. It certainly adds a rustic flair, though. Bagpipes have been banned in Scotland's history, but they were never banned in the thirteenth century. The Battle Of Stirling Bridge Is Missing A Bridge, this brazen disregard for historical accuracy is just painfully obvious . Wallace and his men never sacked York, they looted and destroyed the city of Carlisle. The scene depicting the Battle of Falkirk shows Irish soldiers, originally fighting for the English, switching sides to fight with the Scottish rebels, even greeting them with handshakes on their walk over. This did not happen in any way, shape, or form. William Wallace's life begins when the men of his Scottish village are called to a meeting with the English that ends up being a trap. All the Scots at the meeting are brutally murdered and young Wallace is traumatized by the image of their corpses. This atrocity provokes Wallace's father and the other patriarchs in his village to fight back, resulting in his father's death. There is no historical evidence, however, that this treacherous meeting ever happened. Scottish nobles did swear fealty to the king of England, but they weren't killed afterwards, and the Wallaces certainly did not have a connection to any such event. The immaculate, matching uniforms of the English in the film is not a failure only on Braveheart's part. To be fair, almost every movie about medieval Europe gets this wrong. The reality would be visually confusing to most movie watchers. In the thirteenth century, soldiers were not wearing matching standards over their chain mail, they were wearing whatever tunics they could find or afford.
As a not quite so dumb member of the American masses, I can attest that I know of many persons amongst my fellow countrymen who were always well aware of the nonsensical nature of Mr. Gibson’s work.
Can most of his output be summed up to "Celtic warrior spirit defeats Anglo trickery"? It's like he wanted it to be about Jews but made it about Anglos instead because they're an acceptable target.
It's really weird that the vary fact of not liking Jews makes one "Based"... Gibson is not otherwise some paragon of virtue or piety as far as I am aware.
CZcams Channel “Epic Rap Battles of History” produces more historically accurate content than all of Hollywood, the public-school system, and PBS, Combined! I weep for the future generations that may, one day, grow up without having even ever listened to one chapter from the Holy Bible, perhaps even, God forbid, the awareness of its very existence... Dear Lord, have mercy on the children of tomorrow, for they have not your Word written on their hearts.
Co host is thoroughly misinformed about Aethelstan and Brunaburgh.... Sure the motivation may have been preemptive containment, but that battle was a massive Scottish invasion (with some Irish) of Aethelstan's territory... had nothing to do with some fantastical notion of conquering scotland. Aethelstan's consolidation in England is what was under attack. and seeing as he ended the invasion and another didn't follow I'd say it's clear he won a great victory, as the writers from the time tell us. the Irish motivation (which goes to show who the aggressor in the immediate instance was) was that they didn't want to lose out on the endless rading of England they had been doing for a long while, so they were naturally going to oppose anyone consolidating such a powerful realm within the isles.
Braveheart: An Unbridled Rage.
"The problem with Scotland is that it's full of Scots." - the SNP, almost literally
They prefer English people who can be trusted to behave themselves as merely Anti-English that they can get they can then absolve only themselves of.
AM usually is striving for the measured, purely observant tone as regards historiography so having him rant in absolute disdain of this movie is hilarious and a nice change of pace in binging through the whole channel.
Superb stream, correcting many appalling historical inaccuracies in the ‘Braveheart’ film. Apoplectic Majesty’s rage was a joy to behold. It is sad that Hollywood, and the ego’s involved, feel it necessary to misrepresent historical events on such a scale.
@@benisrood Yes, many people here in Australia have a difficult relationship with Mel. They’re hugely proud of his achievements as the first really big Aussie movie star, but they’re somewhat perplexed at his statements on various groups and other issues. Usually they’ll say”oh he’s gone nuts…what a shame!”
@@LadyOfShaIott he was dead right 25 years back when talking about china and north korea and the treasonous australian politicians.
@@Sandwich13455 and many other things
@@slimdiddyd gob bless him!
@@LadyOfShaIott he's not really even Australian, he's American
Thank you to Michael Fox for your Super Sticker, and to Page Unknown, Jacob & Dee's BOR for your Super Chats. I'll read them out on the next stream having copied them from the Live chat replay. Hopefully YT will actually fix the Super Chat feature by then.
Very enjoyable stream
Watched Braveheart two nights ago to be able to listen to this stream. Many lols occurring right now.
The CZcams channel Real Crusades History did several podcasts/videos many years ago on Kingdom of Heaven going over the issues with it. Basically it's a weird playing out of Kantian philosophy set in an anachronistic christendom.
They might've also done one on braveheart but I don't remember. Might be well worth doing yourselves regardless.
oh Kingdom of heaven has the same problem as Braveheart where one side is seen as wholly evil and the other is seen as wholly good who being treated cruelly by the evil side.
It’s one of those films where the directors cut completely changes the film.
@@James-sk4db in what sense, if you don't mind me asking?
@@sh-hg4eg feel free to watch the below
czcams.com/video/pdqI49DKfhM/video.html&ab_channel=DanielNetzel
That so-called Hollywood " historical" movies, aren't historically accurate is matter of fact for some Americans. Take Saving Ryan for example, that ANY American president would send an elite squad of American soldiers in the middle of a fluid battle in a World War II to rescue one American Soldier for ANY reason is ridiculous. But given that Steven Spielberg directed it, made it a good movie. As a former U.S. soldier I can attest to this fact.
I'm American, the story of Saving Private Ryan is a metaphor for the American involvement in the European front. Why are all these Americans dying at D Day for a continent of other warring nations? The soldiers themselves, as usual in all wars, had zero say in the mission but did their damnedest to save Ryan and eventually win the war. In the same way Apocalypse Now was about the insanity of the Vietnam War, SPR is how the Americans thought of the European front. Most Americans don't realize that before Pear Harbor few Americans didn't think it was our war but the Japanese made it personal by attacking Pearl Harbor and so the Americans decided to officially join the Allies.
I don't know why people think it's a true story, you're right, too many Americans think it's a true story. It is however still one of the most accurate WW2 films on many other levels.
@@chickencharlie1992 I appreciate the validation, the only instance in the ETO that is even remotely like saving private Ryan is toward the end of the war General Patton ordered a company of his forces to rescue a officer who was related to one of his officers, from a POW camp. The mission was a bloodbath and a failure. The press who was actively against Patton, because he was vehemently against the communists had a field day with the incident to blacken his image. The incident is related in the book the Patton papers, written by his adjutant around 1960. This book should be taken with a grain of salt however, because his adjutant was a creature of the deep state and censored most of Patton's criticisms of the communists and of his fellow Generals, especially Eisenhower.
Excellent stream and chat. This film really gets my goat too.
I’ve had people tell me Edward I was a pagan bc that’s what braveheart said. It’s incredible
"Don't the facts get in the way of a good story"
Apoplectic Majesty, ahoy!
46:40 - It's because the American culture which Mel Gibson's films appeal to is descended from the Borderers, who were bitter enemies of both their own nobility (who as lords of a war-torn borderland were notoriously cruel) and the English administration, who tried everything to pacify them and drive out this culture moulded by centuries of perennial war and raiding. Half of the American right-wing coalition consists of these people, which is why the right in that country is so inept at using government force, half of them are essentially anarchists in their basic worldview.
0/10 analysis here. Read some history maybe
Braveheart is a good movie if you treat it as a purely fictional film.
I don't have an issue if you're upfront in declaring this to be an historically inspired fantasy film. Instead you have that ridiculous line at the beginning of the film: "Historians from England will claim that I am a liar, but history is written by those who've hanged heroes".
@@ApostolicMajesty I agree with you.
Loved this
Love the stream Thank You.
This was fantastic!! Thank you so much!
Great stream. Thank you
I really want to see AM cover Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. Truly the most historically accurate portrayal of the American Civil War.
Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter is a fantasy film, I only wish Braveheart was.
No one will ever make Joe Biden: Zombie Killer
@@ApostolicMajestyyes it had no pretense to be historically accurate.
Netflix did a movie called Outlaw King that portrayed the efforts of Robert the Bruce... I wonder how much more accurate its depiction was and if that has much of a role to play in its lack of success (though who knows, maybe it will be appreciated in time to come).
Lincler half Linclon half Hitler.... See Rick and Morty
Why am I just watching this episode now after being subbed to your channel for at least a year!
Your rage is so good AM, it filled me with such joy!
Great video, first time I found your channel. Subbed!
Excellent stream. Thanks for all your work. Personally I like the free flowing nature of the streams delivery, it can make the listener feel involved rather than being a passive receiver of a tightly scripted film.
Poor AM can't bear that England got her jolly ass kicked by Mel Gibson in multiple time periods
Melly boy hates the English almost as much as he hates merchants
Good work, gentlemen. Thoroughly enjoyed. God bless you both.
From a descendant of The Black Douglas
Braveheart would have made more sense if it was set in a fantasy world with dragons and magic.
Excellent stream once again. You mention other channels have fancy visuals and scripts, but their absence is not diminishing in the slightest to the value of what you are doing. There is something about a conversational style without distracting animations or whatnot that can actually be preferable.
This was quite enjoyable, I'm glad I found this channel. I have now watched this video and your video on Kingdom of Heaven. I think I mostly like these sorts of videos for the discussion of the actual history (not appearing in these films, haha) that gets discussed, so I look forward to listening to more of your videos as that seems to be what this channel is (i.e. NOT movie reviews).
I did have a couple comments.
First, I think you are overthinking the choice to leave out the other guy (who's name I can't remember just now) who helped lead the scottish forces (and died) at sterling bridge. This is a hollywood movie, hollywood movies are lowest common denominator affairs and too many characters risk confusing "general audiences". Did you NEED two dudes leading the Scotts to tell the story? Who is the other guy? Do we need a backstory for him? What are his motivations? They have only got a couple hours, so you either make him a sidekick (hell, they could have just given his name to Large McRedhead, the childhood friend), or you cut it. So they cut it.
Hollywood generally makes dumb movies where they dont' expect much from audiences. I like Braveheart (and Patriot too, but that is almost entirely because there just aren't many war films set in the 18th century, and I love me some muskets and 18th cent uniforms, movie itself is godawful (with the minor exception of Mr. Evil Dragoon Captain, that character is delightfully cheesy)), it's dumb, but fun. I commiserate with the frustration of people voting SNP in solidarity with a cartoonish fantasy version of history, but if braveheart was the reason they voted a certain way, would they have been likely to have had a more nuanced or thoughtful politic stance in its absence? Reject Democracy, Return to Monachy! :D
And simplification for general audiences is even true in really great films like Master and Commander which you mention. You say at one point that in that they changed the American Vessel to a French vessel in order to appease an American audience. I think that is only part of it. If you recall, Russel Crowe makes a speech about the royal navy being the last defense of Britain against the all conquering armies of Napoleon.
Would the average movie goer care or feel more engaged if the movie explained that the crew was fighting an American ship because the Americans had sided with the French because they were upset about the British impressing US sailors into military service? (yes, it is more complicated than this, but it WAS a major reason for the conflict and kinda undermines the audience-character relationship when the protagonists represent the globe spanning super power and they are hunting down the plucky underdogs who have the audacity to complain when their sailors get habitually kidnapped and forced to fight for said global superpower) So, yeah, they went with Napoleon bad m'kay? And hand waved the distinctly American vessel issue. (Though of course you were entirely correct in the point you were making when you mentioned this that the French were portrayed as enemies, not villains.)
Oh, last thought. I am not sure Americans are as anti-nobility as Columba (I think it was Columba, maybe it was both of you...) seems to think. I might be wrong, but I don't think Americans (In case it isn't obvious by my manner of speaking (writing?) I am one)) really care. American's seem to love downton abbey as much as you Brits do. And i've never heard anyone complain about a film or book because of the class of the protagonist.
Of course, I DO admit it is a common trend in US media. I suspect this has more to do with unfamiliarity with the entire concept than a real demand for a commoner protagonist. Probably another example of hollywood trying to avoid confusing its audience. ( Lower nobility is a totally alien concept to most people, they know king/count/princess are Noble titles, but "WTF is gentry" is a common american reaction)
Absolutely everything holllywood produces is pushing a narrative & creating a false mythology to obscure the real human experience. Sort of like in 1984 where it talks about who controls the past controls the future or whatever.
I've noticed over the course of my life a constant theme of making the Englishman the '"bad guy" in every story. Even when the Englishman is the good guy, he's still portrayed as some kind of menace. The defaming of the English is definitely a thing in popular culture, though it may be subtle enough most maybe don't notice it.
One way to consolidate a new order is to demonise the previous one, making the new one look better by contrast. But why do this when Britain became an American vassal willingly? Maybe it's only old-school Britain that they're demonising.
A good example of this is Pocahontas, in which the town leader is pirtrayed as a bloodthirsty villain who persecuted the Indians, the reality is that they murdered him and the entire town who were barely surviving the winter.
@@sh-hg4eg i didn't know that
Hollywood is a miserable dump that is capable of producing nothing but rubbish. Garbage in, garbage out...
Watching from Lanark and loving it
This, along with The Da Vinci Code, is one of my favorite films to watch purely for the joy I get from picking up on all the nonsense and propaganda. Excellent work lads.
I hate Mel Gibson. Excellent stream!
Blasphemer!!!!!
AM getting ridiculously mad about isabella of france was hysterically good fun. I feel like there's a lot of truck-appeal potential in doing more streams about popular historical films that just drop the ball terribly
There are whole channels built around ripping apart trash tier history films
@@laurie1183 yea but they´re all pozzed.
I don't think AM is trying to be a big CZcamsr and interested in playing the algorithm
I lost it at “Osama McLaden”
If Braveheart was made today Wallace would be a strong female and the Scottish armies would need more diversity.
A strong black trans woman trying to liberate the population of the opression of the white and male supremacist english king
@@apoliticaldeviant1262 Dass right!
I live next to a famous castle where Edward defended his father's crown
I blame the historical inaccuracies of Braveheart on the need to fit all that history into a 2hr movie, Mel Blames..... Well we know who Mel blames.
What pissed me off the most in Braveheart was that really hot French broad was wasted on Prince Mo.
Not only was Alexander iii alive in 1280, but he had 2 extra heirs.
Don't you know Bravehart and The Patriot is the same movie. Let me explain.
1. Mel Gibson wants to get married raise a family on a farm in the country side.
2. People ask for him to fight the controlling evil English who are seeking havoc on there land.
3. Mel Gibson refused so he can live the perfect life with his growing family farm in the country side.
4. English kills Mel Gibson's family
5. Mel Gibson seeks revenge and single handily brutally slays a entire English regiment.
6. Mel Gibson joins the fight for freedom.
7. Mel Gibson becomes the greatest commander anyone ever sees.
Should I continue or are they the same movie?
Speaking of bad films we had to watch in class. A knight's tale was shown us to get an idea of what medieval Europe was like.
Lol are you American?
@@byroncudworth6918 yes
To make matters worse for American schools we watch Pride, Prejudice, and Zombies to get an idea of what Victorian England was like. The schools were constantly replacing classic peaces of literature for cringe marden peaces of "art" to keep the 5 second attention spans of the students engaged. It never worked.
@@blainemorgan2913 Zombie films to teach students History? I love the USA.
I have to admit that made me laugh, Jane Austen didn't even live to see the Victorian period.
We weren't showed Braveheart in school, our history teacher told us it was a load of rubbish. I vote SNP because independence is the easiest way to get rid of the Tories and Westminster.
@Harrier_DuBois Voting SNP is the easiest war to turn Scotland into North Gaza.
We watched Braveheart every day in American school - it was part of the Mel Gibson socialist anti-British agenda our evil woke purple-haired lesbian trans teachers forced us to learn (down with George III!!!)
1:37:00 they don't show the gore, but they do show enough to see Gibson/Wallace is disinbowled and cut. Remember also the midget jester play acts the same
Ulliam Uallace came to America. I been trying to figure out who he really was. I don't think you even know. I think his father had the same name, but they were Lions. Marion was probably a medicine woman from America.the Dragon families. Too many of us have royal blood, so Prima noctra sure seems plausible.
Osama McLadin...pmsl
Ohara, Obrian, Osama... fits great!
It's good to be the king.....
not if you are a roman king or your name is john XD.
Overall, I think it's a good rule of thumb...
@@thechurchmilitant4293 as long they read their Machiavelli.
@@thesmilinggun-knight9646 Machiavelli is the one who got us in our present predicament. Both Stalin and Hitler used Machiavelli's prince as a guide. Not to mention our elites who aren't stupid enough to admit to it.
51:20 - So Wallace was the Scottish Arminius?
This entertaining discussion raises the question of whether or to what extent factual accuracy and appeal to 'modern audiences' should be traded off. Unfortunately 'modern audiences' seem poorly educated and film-makers pander to that. Worse than that, is the deliberate distortion of history to serve a contemporary political narrative.
William Wallace never earned the moniker "Braveheart." It was the name given to Robert the Bruce, a Scottish hero who is wrongly portrayed as a traitor in the film.
From the very beginning, nothing about the film's timing and its sequence of events makes any historical sense. The film opens in 1276, at which point in reality King Alexander III of Scotland was still alive and the English weren't yet making much of a fuss over Scotland. The rebellion began in 1296.
Additionally, in reality King Edward I did not die at the same time as William Wallace as the film suggests, he died several years later. King Edward II did not marry Isabella until after Wallace's death, at which time she was 13, considerably younger than the 29-year-old Sophie Marceau who played her in the film.
Isabella of France was 13 at the time of Wallace's death and not yet even married to Edward II. So while the film uses her as a love interest, she didn't know William Wallace and he did not father the future king of England, Edward III.
Interestingly, Isabella did actually eventually lead a rebellion against her husband with her lover, but that was much later and was to ensure that her son would take the throne.
William Wallace comes from humble means. The nobles refer to him as a commoner, his burlap outfits are covered in dirt, and the roof of his house is made of straw. This imagining, however compelling, is fiction.
The Wallaces were a longstanding and noble family and William's father, Malcolm, was a knight. William would have had an excellent education and military training. Oh, and he wasn't a Highlander, either. He was from the Lowlands, of the same Anglo-Norman descent as his English rivals.
When you think of Scotland, you think of kilts. It's okay, its a cultural phenomenon that has become inseparable from the country. Only thing is, they are far more modern than movies like Braveheart would have you believe. Kilts did not become a significant clothing item for Scottish people until the seventeenth century.
That's a solid 300 years after William Wallace was killing people.
King Edward II was not A gay, the modern concept of homosexuality simply did not exist in the thirteenth century. Edward II was incredibly and disastrously biased towards his male companions, but their intimate relationships would not have been questionable at the time. Instead his people were more riled up at Edward's tendency to give titles to non-noble people. Nor is it likely Edward was disgusted by his wife. The film portrays him as unable to conceive, but in reality he fathered four children with her. Indeed, he was considered by many to be the perfect prince. He was intelligent, athletic, and had a flair for the showmanship that the English monarchy was known for. Gaveston did not die falling from a window. No close friend of Edward II is ever said to have died in this manner.
blue face paint worn by William Wallace and his compatriots in Braveheart is, unfortunately, also well off the real Scottish timeline. It was a tradition from the 4th and 5th centuries that the Highlanders would likely not have used.
But it's not just the battle makeup that's off base. There is no evidence to suggest that the Scottish Highlanders were sporting mullets with braids, dreads, and little fur attachments. It certainly adds a rustic flair, though.
Bagpipes have been banned in Scotland's history, but they were never banned in the thirteenth century.
The Battle Of Stirling Bridge Is Missing A Bridge, this brazen disregard for historical accuracy is just painfully obvious
.
Wallace and his men never sacked York, they looted and destroyed the city of Carlisle.
The scene depicting the Battle of Falkirk shows Irish soldiers, originally fighting for the English, switching sides to fight with the Scottish rebels, even greeting them with handshakes on their walk over. This did not happen in any way, shape, or form.
William Wallace's life begins when the men of his Scottish village are called to a meeting with the English that ends up being a trap. All the Scots at the meeting are brutally murdered and young Wallace is traumatized by the image of their corpses. This atrocity provokes Wallace's father and the other patriarchs in his village to fight back, resulting in his father's death. There is no historical evidence, however, that this treacherous meeting ever happened.
Scottish nobles did swear fealty to the king of England, but they weren't killed afterwards, and the Wallaces certainly did not have a connection to any such event.
The immaculate, matching uniforms of the English in the film is not a failure only on Braveheart's part. To be fair, almost every movie about medieval Europe gets this wrong. The reality would be visually confusing to most movie watchers. In the thirteenth century, soldiers were not wearing matching standards over their chain mail, they were wearing whatever tunics they could find or afford.
As a not quite so dumb member of the American masses, I can attest that I know of many persons amongst my fellow countrymen who were always well aware of the nonsensical nature of Mr. Gibson’s work.
Shhh you're interrupting these British aristocrats from their fox hunt! Cheerey-oh!
Mel Gibson is epically based but this was a good video
Can most of his output be summed up to "Celtic warrior spirit defeats Anglo trickery"? It's like he wanted it to be about Jews but made it about Anglos instead because they're an acceptable target.
@@ingold1470 don't worry he made the passion of the christ
Haha true
Oy
Not all the Americans are dumb, A.M. that's a generality that's beneath you.
I have a pathological need to derisively stereotype the largest segment of my audience for kicks.
@@ApostolicMajesty come for troll, stay for the history....🤣
@@ApostolicMajesty i see
It's really weird that the vary fact of not liking Jews makes one "Based"... Gibson is not otherwise some paragon of virtue or piety as far as I am aware.
Your channel name gives you away sir, but I mostly agree with your sentiments.
@WatchEuropaTheLastBattle I guess Nietzsche was a cuck then...
Wow… AM loses his cool.
Screw Braveheart, watch the Outlaw King
CZcams Channel “Epic Rap Battles of History” produces more historically accurate content than all of Hollywood, the public-school system, and PBS, Combined! I weep for the future generations that may, one day, grow up without having even ever listened to one chapter from the Holy Bible, perhaps even, God forbid, the awareness of its very existence... Dear Lord, have mercy on the children of tomorrow, for they have not your Word written on their hearts.
Co host is thoroughly misinformed about Aethelstan and Brunaburgh....
Sure the motivation may have been preemptive containment, but that battle was a massive Scottish invasion (with some Irish) of Aethelstan's territory...
had nothing to do with some fantastical notion of conquering scotland. Aethelstan's consolidation in England is what was under attack.
and seeing as he ended the invasion and another didn't follow I'd say it's clear he won a great victory, as the writers from the time tell us.
the Irish motivation (which goes to show who the aggressor in the immediate instance was) was that they didn't want to lose out on the endless rading of England they had been doing for a long while, so they were naturally going to oppose anyone consolidating such a powerful realm within the isles.