Original subtitles

His reputation cuts like a broad sword through medieval folklore.

His name echoes through Scotland and into the hearts of its people.

His deeds represent an unbending commitment to his country's fierce independence.

A man who died a martyr and became a legend.

He has great mobility in him and what he sets out to do, even

though he sets out to do what he does for different reasons.

And he's just a very exciting speaker in history.

He was a Scottish patriot.

He was a rebel, a rebel with a cause.

Everything he did, I think he did with great passion, whether it was loving or

whether it was fighting or whether it was for his country.

He's a man of the people and he was one of them, but he had a real vision for what

the country could be and he had a vision of, well out of his time.

William Wallace continues to haunt the imagination with a vision of freedom,

liberty and independence.

But who was this man?

For nearly 700 years, a debate has existed about many events in William Wallace's

life and his role in Scotland's turbulent history.

Was he truly Braveheart, the bold but savage hero of the Scottish Wars,

or his sum accounts have attested?

Was he nothing but an outlaw and a traitor to England?

William Wallace was a heroic figure, but he was also a man.

The real question is, where does the truth end and the legend begin?

The name William Wallace has become synonymous

with heroic resistance against oppression.

The legend, which surrounds him, shares common characteristics with other

great mythical figures, whose stories were formed by

oral tradition, such as King Arthur and Robinhood.

Motion pictures pick up this custom of storytelling, causing

the mythology to live on in the public's consciousness.

Let this scrapper come to me.

Unlike other myths, which are less grounded in historical events,

documented accounts of William Wallace appear between 1297 and 1305.

However, there has been such an enormous amount of speculation surrounding Wallace

from the 14th century on, that it is unclear when the man ends and the myth begins.

One of the most significant resources on the life of William Wallace is the epic

poem, The Wallace, written by Henry the Minstrel, also known as Blind Harry.

Written over 150 years after the death of Wallace, this account of his life became

the second most popular book in Scotland after the Bible.

Harry wrote his epic poem because the story of William

Wallace had almost been eradicated from history.

There's also a lot of legend that surrounds the character,

mainly due to the writings of Blind Harry the Minstrel.

Now, whether they're true or not is... it's a matter for debate, I suppose.

But they certainly are dramatic and interesting.

Blind Harry claimed that his poem was based on the writings of Wallace's

chaplain, John Blair, but no such manuscript has ever been found.

Historians have shown that Blind Harry's poetry is

a complex blend of some facts with much fiction.

The question of the historical accuracy of

Braveheart is one that always makes me laugh.

When we're creating something, when we're in the business of

storytelling, we're in a process of myth-making for which the audience,

the listeners, are just as crucial as the speakers.

They respond to the story in a certain way.

I wasn't looking to describe facts or numbers or to quantify William Wallace.

I wanted to capture a spirit and a feeling

that I had had when movies had changed my life.

Most generations of Scots are very familiar with the tale of William Wallace

through such authors as Sir Walter Scott and Scotland's National Poet Robert Burns.

But because of the widespread success and popular acclaim of the motion picture

Braveheart, his story is now known to audiences around the world.

This Academy Award-winning film created a powerful

interpretation of who William Wallace was.

But to find a more complex understanding of the Scottish

hero, we must dig deeper into the layers of myth.

Through the words of medieval chroniclers and historical figures of Wallace's time,

we can further unearth the history of the man and the country he died for.

700 years ago, Scotland was sparsely populated.

Most families lived in the countryside, struggling

to scrape a living off the rugged harsh land.

People rarely traveled more than a few miles

from the clusters of homes where they lived.

The country is difficult and hard to travel over.

To a man on horseback, the hills are impassable, safe here and near.

They didn't have much in those days.

They lived off the land.

They didn't have a lot of tools.

They certainly didn't have the resources.

They built low to the ground for weather purposes and science of the hills.

There was no central eating.

The clothes they wore were not that warm.

Disease is obviously running rampant at that point.

When you look at the people, you really wonder how did they exist?

The actual dwellings of Scots and towns and things.

How primitive it really was.

It was just like stone, almost just out of the cave.

They didn't even have fireplaces.

They just had holes in the roof.

Very little is known about William Wallace's family and life before his

appearance in the military accounts of 1297.

Historians are not even sure where or when Wallace was born, but many believe that he

was born around 1270 in the village of Eldersley.

For he was common of gentlemen, and simple states said he was then.

His father was a manly knight.

His mother was a lady bright.

Unfortunately, tragedy struck early in Wallace's life when his father and

possibly a brother were killed in a battle against the English.

Around this time, young Wallace was taken to live with his uncle, who was a cleric.

To Elisley, he and his mother went.

She, on the morrow, for a brother sent, who told her to her sorrow, grief and pain.

Her husband and her eldest son were slain.

Through the writings of Blind Harry, it is

implied that Wallace became a well-educated man.

Paisley Abbey is believed to be the place where Wallace received his early schooling.

He was thought to have learned several languages, including Latin and French.

However, the hardships of the time might have led Wallace to become an outlaw.

Numerous English sources refer to him as a common

criminal, partly to discredit his role in history.

William Wallace has been characterized as a thief

and was certainly seen as one by the English.

I asked myself at times how you would view the Scots and the whole Scottish movement

from the other side, from the English

perspective, the Scots were this troublesome race.

Most historians and storytellers agree that Wallace was a large man, although we

have neither a drawing nor painting of him from his time.

A broadsword thought to be his, currently on display in the Wallace

monument, boasts a sizable length of over five and a half feet.

I never believed that William Wallace was six foot

eight or nearly seven feet tall or any of those things.

I did imagine him being somewhat blonde.

I thought of him originally as 28-29 when I started writing

the story because that was the age he would have been.

And I saw him in an almost Nordic Viking mythological way.

I never wrote the story with Mel Gibson in mind.

I never really write anything with an actor in mind.

But once it was done, the only guy could imagine playing him was Mel Gibson.

Wallace must have been incredibly strong.

He lived past the age of 30, you know, you were a Superman.

In 1285, the Scottish people were looking

back over many years of peace and prosperity.

For more than 30 years, their country had been ruled by King Alexander III.

Inaugurated at the age of eight, his reign as King of Scots was absolute.

No country, not even the hostile neighboring England could dispute his authority.

However, the death of Alexander's wife and all three of his children within just a

few years made the question of the succession, one of pressing importance.

It was essential that the King have a healthy heir to avoid bitter quarrels

about who should succeed him as the ruler of Scotland.

In October 1285, Alexander married a young French noblewoman, Yoland of Dru.

The leaders of Scottish society rejoiced.

There seemed every reason for Scotland to look

forward to further times of peace and prosperity.

Unfortunately, that would not be the case.

In March of 1286, King Alexander set off from his Edinburgh

Castle to join his new wife at his Royal Manor in Kinghorn.

He rode on horseback on a stormy night, refusing

to listen to those who told him not to travel.

The next day he was found dead with his neck broken.

Officially, he had fallen from his horse, but foul play was suspected.

After Alexander's death, the country was calm and relations with England prevailed

until the death of Alexander's young daughter and only heir, Margaret, in 1290.

Because there was still no king to rule over

Scotland, a competition suddenly arose for the crown.

Two of the strongest claimants were John Baileyall and Robert the Bruce.

Both men began styling themselves as heir of Scotland.

England seized the opportunity to wield its

political might and to interfere in Scottish affairs.

King Edward I had ruled England since 1272.

Popularly known as Longshanks, he was an imposing figure of a man.

Able to inspire his troops with his stature and physical presence,

it was not a surprise when he set his sights on Scotland.

Longshanks spent most of his reign as king procuring Scotland

and getting that within his realm so that he had control of it.

He spent a long time doing it and did subdue

Scotland because he was a very strong king.

He was a brilliant general, a strategist, and

Machiavelli, and he knew how to work these things.

A very interesting man.

He founded a thing called the Model Parliament, as a direct

result of which we now have the Houses of Parliament.

Another of Edward's ambitions is to have France.

He engineered this marriage between the French princess and his homosexual son for

the matter of political convenience and a grandusment of his own territory.

I did further research and was trying to refine other elements about what an

affectionate view that British historians have of Longshanks.

They view him as one of their greatest kings.

In the meantime, the Scottish Parliament chose

six leading men to temporarily rule the country.

Known as the Guardians of Scotland, they were the

de facto heads of state during this turbulent time.

Fearing a civil war, they wrote in despair to King Edward.

There is a fear of a general war and a large-scale slaughter, unless God threw

your act of involvement in good offices, administered a quick cure.

In response to their plea, King Edward's terms included choosing the next ruler of

Scotland, and only if he would be recognized as

Lord Paramount, the feudal superior of their realm.

After some initial resistance, this precondition was finally accepted.

In 1292, Edward presided over a feudal court where judgment

was given in favour of John Belia over Robert the Bruce.

Crowned on the Scottish Stone of Destiny,

Beliaal swore allegiance to the King of England.

However, his loyalty to Edward would not last long.

You have come with a vast crowd of soldiers

and committed acts of slaughter and burning.

We cannot any longer endure these insults and will

announce the fealty and homage which we have done to you.

In 1296, King John Beliaal renounced the crown

and was imprisoned in the Tower of London.

All landholders in Scotland were now required to swear an oath of homage to

Edward, and he ruled Scotland like a province through English viceroys.

Opposition began springing up all over Scotland.

The threat of civil war was over.

It was now a war for independence.

William Wallace materializes in the history books in

May of 1297 when he kills the English sheriff of Lanark.

William Wallace's first appearance on the historical stage was in what some people

refer to as a riot in Lanark that had to do with a woman that he was either engaged

to or married to secretly, that there were various legends.

And no one knows.

You sort of try to extract the historical

record, but there's no real hard historical data.

Her name in Scottish tradition was Marion Braidfoot.

Robin Hood was not so distant from when I had started writing Braveheart.

I just didn't want to have the love of his life be named Marion.

Some accounts suggest that the sheriff of Lanark was attracted to Marion and

provoked an incident leading to the riot and her demise.

Others suggest Marion's death was in retaliation for a fight in which Wallace

and his men maimed and killed English soldiers.

She's killed ultimately in the marketplace in front of a large

crowd and William hears about it and then takes his revenge.

From time all those people who hated the English

flocked to him and he became their leader.

He was wondrously brave and bold.

This story may explain Wallace's act of vengeance.

However, there is no concrete evidence for the existence of Marion Braidfoot,

whose name it has been suggested was suspiciously close

to the family name of one of Blind Harry's neighbors.

At the time of the sheriff's murder, English

control of Scotland was starting to slip away.

Robert the Bruce was also heavily involved in the fight for Scottish independence.

In contrast to Wallace, Bruce's actions during that time showed an uncertainty

about how to achieve his family's political ambitions.

And it's an interesting character because he wavers.

He's kind of a bit of a lost soul, so he's constantly drawn to the darker

aspects of compromise and wealth and preserving the castles and the lands which

he has along with all of the other wealthy people in that country.

William Wallace brought a fierce energy to the war.

He continued to kill English officials and burn their buildings across Scotland.

Wallace was joined by knights as well as peasants from all over the realm,

outnumbered by the English army.

Wallace used guerrilla tactics as a swift and bloody way to defeat his enemy.

This ragtag army of Scots eventually launched a daring raid on scone,

the ancient center for the crowning of Scottish kings.

This castle had become the base of William Ormsby,

the English chief justice who controlled the area.

Ormsby managed to escape but left behind all his valuable

possessions that were triumphantly seized by Wallace.

This incredible achievement by the Scottish army signaled

that the English were losing control over the country.

Our officials have been killed, besieged or imprisoned

or have abandoned their positions and dare not go back.

No shire is properly ruled.

With King Edward preoccupied in his war against the French, it was left to the

Earl of Surrey and Hugh Cresingham to gather a huge army to

crush the Scottish resistance, especially that of Wallace.

One of the most decisive battles for Scottish

independence took place on September 11th, 1297.

This battle would go down in Scottish history

as William Wallace's greatest military victory.

That first battle at Stirling was actually called the Battle of Stirling Bridge.

He had 2000 and against 10,000 and he won.

The Battle of Stirling was not only a military victory for Wallace.

It was also a tactical victory for the protection of Scotland.

The Battle of Stirling, the Battle of Thalker and the Battle of Bannockburn were

all within a ten-mile diameter of each other.

I believe the reason is that that's the gateway up into the Highlands.

That there are the mountains from the West and the Glasgow

side and the mountains from the East and the Edinburgh side.

And there's this great plane that moves out

there from where Stirling Castle is and opens up.

And that became almost the agreed upon battleground.

This is where we will fight about who comes into Scotland and who controls this

region, which is like the heartland of Scotland.

Before the battle took place, Wallace had joined

forces with Scottish nobleman Andrew Murray.

Wallace and Murray were planning to lay siege to Dundee Castle.

Hearing about their objective, the English army headed north with a

superior force that greatly outnumbered the Scots.

Wallace and Murray realized they must gain a better position against the enemy.

They decided to race to Scotland's primary river crossing at Stirling.

The English army knew that they overwhelmingly outnumbered the Scots.

They had archers, knights and plenty of cavalry.

It was unheard of that such a large mounted force could ever be defeated.

In an act of confidence, the Earl of Surrey and Hugh Cressingham sent two

Dominican friars to the Scots encampment to negotiate their surrender.

Wallace's reply was swift.

Go back and tell your people that we have not come here for peace.

We are ready to fight to avenge ourselves and free our country.

Let them come up to us as soon as they like.

And we shall prove this in a very built.

Wallace and Murray's forces watched from a nearby hill as

the English army began crossing over the narrow bridge.

Though they knew the enemy was at hand, they began to pass over a bridge so narrow

that even two horsemen could scarcely and with much difficulty right side by side.

When only a few thousand soldiers had crossed over,

Wallace and Murray moved down the hill and attacked.

A large bore of spearmen blocked the northern under the bridge so that no

English could either come across it or retire over it.

He had his carpenters undermine the bridge the night before.

He let the cavalry go through.

I mean, I did the bridge and separated them from the infantry.

At least horrendous battles took place.

You know, actually taking somebody's head off right in front of you.

Nowadays, you fire a gun or you use a missile.

It's, you know, then it was personal, very personal.

Now, if you've got that in full swing and you've got a thousand people behind you

pushing you, you know, and somebody comes up to you with that swinging away.

I mean, you're gone.

The English knights could not maneuver and the soldiers were driven back,

killed, wounded and drowned in the river.

The Earl of Surrey and the rest of his army watched the slaughter

from the other side of the river, powerless to intervene.

The remainder of the English army fled as Wallace attacked them with his cavalry.

In the battle, several thousand English soldiers and numerous knights were massacred.

The Battle of Sterling Bridge was a remarkable victory.

It was the first time that spear-carrying foot soldiers

defeated an army with heavy cavalry and archers.

The English were now forced to retreat from Scotland.

After the astounding victory, the English held castles at Sterling and Dundee

surrendered, providing further success for the Scottish forces.

The Scottish nobility named William Wallace and

Andrew Murray as joint guardians of Scotland.

They would now fill many of the responsibilities

of the imprisoned King John Bailey Hall.

But not long after the triumph at Sterling Bridge,

Andrew Murray died of injuries received in that battle.

Wallace now became the sole guardian of Scotland.

William Wallace, Knight, guardian of the King of Scotland and commander of its

army, in the name of Lord John, King of Scotland,

by consent of the community of the realm.

His aim was not power for himself, but to restore King

John Bailey Hall as ruler of an independent Scotland.

Self aggrandizement was not on the man's list.

I think he was truly interested in liberty and loved his country and he really just

wanted to be free and wanted freedom for his fellows.

I really don't think that there was a lot of self motive

there, otherwise it would have been more obvious in history.

However, some chroniclers suggest that the nobles were not

enthusiastic about giving their consent to Wallace's guardianship.

He had very little regard for the class system or the caste system.

The nobility didn't phase him at all.

In fact, he used to pay no attention to that whatsoever.

He'd just take the reins in his own hands so

they'd do it his way and he'd lean on them.

They could not get together and agree on anything.

He was ahead of his time in the fact that he could see unification of a country and

a nation and a bunch of scattered tribes as it were in clans.

And he wanted to bring them together and unite against the common enemy.

The only English garrisons remaining were those in Edinburgh and Roxborough.

Wallace was therefore free to take his men

on savage raids through the north of England.

There he did great damage to the English holdings.

In October 1297, Wallace announced his success against the English in letters to

Northern European ports, urging them to trade with Scotland.

Tell you, Martins, that they can have safe access to all ports of Scotland because

the Kingdom of Scotland has been recovered from the power of the English.

Wallace was successful against the English occupiers.

Unfortunately, his rule over the country would be short.

In early 1298, King Edward returned from his French Wars.

Taking the Scottish military threat seriously, he

immediately gathered his army and began advancing north.

Longshanks was determined to seek revenge for the defeat at Sterling Bridge.

The English forces that Edward assembled were impressive.

Over 2,000 horse and 12,000 infantry, which included

archers, knights and men armed with the longbow.

With only 8,000 men, Wallace's army was outnumbered.

On July 22, 1298, King Edward received intelligence that Wallace had taken up

position in the wood of calendar near Falkirk,

only 13 miles away from his encampment.

When hearing the news, he was delighted.

As God lives, they need not to pursue me, but I will meet them this day.

With the woodland behind them, Wallace's army prepared for battle.

He arranged his foot soldiers in four great circles.

We'll make spears.

Hundreds of them.

Long spears.

Twice as long as they man.

With their spears pointing outwards, the circles

would be difficult for the English cavalry to attack.

Wallace was the first person to really stand up against these horse charges,

I think, with the use of the siltrum, which is like wooden, sharpened stakes.

They used to actually form in squares or circles with these siltrums and keep horse

and soldier out, so that they really called the shots.

They could kind of like group into a small thing and

have a porcupine skin so nobody could gain access.

But when the English knights charged, their terrifying

power caused the Scottish cavalry to flee without a fight.

However, the siltrum still held.

A reign of arrows poured into them, killing and wounding so many that great

gaps were left in the siltrums, allowing the English knights to charge.

Wallace had no recourse but to retreat.

There is controversy over the suggestion by some storytellers that Robert the Bruce

conspired with King Edward to help defeat William Wallace at Falkirk.

Apparently, he did fight for the English.

Maybe not of that battle.

That works dramatically, but I'm sure it wasn't that battle.

But I know that he did fight for the English, you know, swap allegiances.

Because he had to, it was like extortion.

The nobility was famous for just switching sides.

I mean, for whatever work for them, they'd do it.

Wallace's rise had been due to his military skill and success.

So after the defeat at Falkirk, he resigned as guardian and mysteriously disappeared.

There are those parts of the legend that in the last years that William Wallace

went to France and even went as far as the Vatican

to intercede with the Pope for help for Scotland.

In 1301, Wallace returned to Scotland and became actively

involved in the resistance against the English occupation.

Wallace refused to submit to his oppressors.

Meanwhile, the Scottish nobles were trying to make peace with King Edward.

In 1304, the Scottish Parliament met at St. Andrews and declared Wallace an outlaw.

King Edward encouraged Wallace's former allies to hunt him down.

A year later, Wallace was betrayed and captured by a Scotsman, John Mantieth,

governor of Dumbarton Castle, who handed him over to the English.

After being imprisoned at Dumbarton Castle, Wallace was taken to London and

led through jeering crowds to Westminster Hall.

On August 23rd, 1305, Wallace was denounced as

a traitor and an outlaw and pronounced guilty.

He was then subjected to the dreadful punishment of hanging, drawing,

and quartering.

He was torn from limb to limb.

His belly opened, the heart and bowels burnt to ashes, and his head cut off.

His body was cut into four parts, each hung by itself in memory of his name.

The four quarters of Wallace's body were distributed to Perth, Berwick,

Sterling, and Newcastle for display.

His fight for Scottish independence had lasted only eight years.

After Wallace's savage execution, the political temperature in Scotland was raised.

Years later, Scotland would fight the English army once again.

This time, the Scottish forces would be led by Robert the Bruce.

He spent the next 15 years fighting against

the English, became a fugitive from the law.

His castles were taken away.

His lands were burnt.

His wife was put in prison.

His family was slaughtered.

And eventually, after, I think, six attempts became the king.

Long Shanks was dead, and his son, Edward II, was now King of England.

He was neither a strong soldier nor an able leader.

His son was not a good king.

Within a year of Long Shanks' death, he lost Scotland.

He lost it all.

He blew it.

His abel of France, with the assistance of French mercenaries,

that she brought over from France, made him abdicate the throne.

And Parliament, the English Parliament, didn't like him either.

They made him get off the throne.

In fact, the English hated this king so much that they killed him.

On June 24, 1314, the Battle of Bannockburn took place.

There, the Scottish army defeated England and

eventually secured Scotland's independence.

After the victory, Robert the Bruce was commonly called King of Scots by all men,

because he had acquired Scotland by force of arms.

It is clear that Robert the Bruce was not the natural successor of William Wallace.

Both men deserve entirely separate reputations as Scottish patriots.

Even though Wallace is considered to have a smaller role in Scottish history,

his legendary tale continues to reverberate through Scotland today.

The people of Scotland voted on September 11,

1997, to create a new Scottish Parliament.

This historic event took place exactly 700 years after William Wallace's victory at

Sterling Bridge, and signaled a new era in self-rule for the country.

My father and I flew to Scotland, and the day we landed, the Scottish

Parliament had voted devolution from the British Parliament.

And the headlines of the papers were Brave Hearts win.

The Scottish people have honoured Wallace for centuries.

The number of place names, statues and memorials found

scattered over the countryside attest to his enduring legacy.

Even though aspects of his story are more heroic myth than historical fact,

there is no denying William Wallace's role in Scotland's proud and turbulent history.