Series 2012 - Apollo 13: The True Story
The true story behind the Hollywood blockbuster Apollo 13.
The true story behind the Hollywood blockbuster Apollo 13.
The facts behind the classic film Saving Private Ryan.
Experts look into the realities behind the classic cowboy tale True Grit.
Submarine SchoolSubmarine officers put their careers at stake in their bids to qualify to command a...
Croc ManThe story of Shaun Foggett, the owner of Britain's first ever Crocodile Zoo - home to each...
Royal Navy Caribbean PatrolNew documentary series following Royal Navy warship HMS Manchester on...
Comments (69)
3 months ago
Joyce Bosworth
I am watching this documentary which I find disturbing. Has nobody realised that the film Braveheart was fictional. Based very loosely on a true character. Many films exagerate the heroism of the main characters - why is this being singled out
3 months ago
Mark Honeywood
Hehehe - even in history, Andy Murray loses in the semi-finals
3 months ago
mel
The term 'Braveheart' actually refers to King Robert the Bruce of Scotland - NOT WALLACE
3 months ago
RKB
I am completely raging how dare a programme advertising itself as a historical examination come up with such claptrap. Historical records are sparse at best - to suggest that William Wallace was some sort of beer swilling minor criminal based on a single document is absolutely ridiculous. Are we honestly expected to belive that there was only one person with the name William Wallace in Scotland and therefore all records found with this name must refer to The Guardian? The debunking of Blind Harry may be forgiven if a properly presented historical theory was set forth with primary source material properly explained including any issues that must be taken account in using the source. That applies to all other evidence and opinion presented in this "entertainment" programme. What was the purpose of this programme? It certainly can't have been to forward historical knowledge and understanding of an important part of Scots history.
3 months ago
Colin McKee
Found this very one sided with all you said Supposed to be the truth I was totally disgusted By your report as you left out facts to suite Your program to demean William Wallace Only fools regarded bravehart as fact your Program falls into the same category very Disappointed
3 months ago
Bronze D
RKB, the William Wallace story is also a part of English history and I found the English-hating Mel Gibson version of our combined story upsetting and offensive. I think most English people tried to take the abuse on the chin and enjoy the film as the load of rubbish that it was.
3 months ago
RKB
Bronze D despite the title this programme was not a forensic examination of film versus history nor indeed a debate of various histographical theory - this was insulting to most if not all of the UK audience. Our nations do best when they acknowledge the strengths of each other and do not pretend that one is superior or dependent on the other. Offense is something that is taken not given.
3 months ago
john
yet agian the english manage to take a story and use it to take down one of the best fitters of his age. they foget that it was al done at Bannockburn
3 months ago
Mark
Bronze D Of course the Mel Gibson version of the story was 'English-hating' as it was told from the Scottish point of view. As for being 'offensive'and 'abuse' towards the English I think that one should point out the suffering of the Scots under 'Longshank's' rule. A nation which he vowed to wipe out if possible and, if not, breed them out. The hammering of the Scots into submission from the 13th Century continued through the Glencoe massacre to Culloden in 1745 when following defeat, tartan and the Gaelic language was banned and the Highland clearences. If anyone should be abused, offended and insulted its the Scots. As RKB stuggested, our nations should work together, learn from history and move forward. However, discrimination and program control of its contents will always reign as with this rather poor attempt to alter history yet again.
This comment was removed by a moderator
3 months ago
Mark
Agreed john, they seem to forget Bannockburn. As for our nations working together, it was King James VI of Scotland (I of England) who decreed to coming together of England, Scotland and Ireland forming the Union Jack flag we still use today. Perhaps the Scots (or rather the Picts) knew what they were doing by repelling the Romans from their land (probably the only nation to succeed). Mel Gibson is an American/Australian and, as mentioned, told the tale of Wallace through cinema with a helping of poetic licence. The film does portray a man who stood up to the oppressors and said "No more" as would any country subject to invasion and suppression. The terrorism subjects are not warranted her in a debate about the program on Wallace. Best left alone.
3 months ago
borders
This film on the life of Mel Gibson was laughable, the historical innacuracies were way beyond belief but they are believed by scotch people all over the world, as though Gibson would have an affair with the Kings daughter in law who was a child at the time, they even have a statue of Gibson in Scotland called the wallace monument,
3 months ago
John Hill
Everyone i talk to was raging and very disappointed about the total rubbish this program produced, do you think its because we are about to give England the boot once again thank god. At least we have true hero's in Scotland, England don't have any, they think sportsman are the hero's
3 months ago
John Hill
Scotch is a drink or were you not schooled in English
3 months ago
Its_My_Island
This so called "documentary" would be laughable if it were not such a smear on William Wallace, one of the greatest freedom fighters who had ever lived. The timing of this program is interesting indeed - coming as it does when Scotish Independence is again being debated. Funny coincidence, eh? I am all in favour of Scottish Indepence so long as Scotland is fully independent and not under the control of the fascist EU.
3 months ago
John
MARK Please can anyone stop these people from printing the wrong things in history do the English not get history at school. Culloden was a defeat for the Jacobite army not the Scots there were more British Army Scottish Regiments at Culloden than English & the Glencoe massacre had nothing to do with the English against the Scots it was old Clan issues and religion
3 months ago
Dean
The film Braveheart was based on an awful book, that was itself full of inaccuracies, including, I kid you not, someone switching on a light! That there was a William Wallace is without doubt, and that he helped to bloody Englands nose is also. The victors write the histories however, which is why so little primary source material exists, and why he is instead remembered in traditional folk memory so vividly.
3 months ago
jean harcourt
we all need a myth in our lives, someone to look up to someone who represents how perhaps we ourselves would like to be, but cannot be. Robin Hood, King Arthur, etc. Yes facts here in the film Braveheart are thin on the ground but the essence of the man is that he came to the forefront of Scottish hopes and assumed an almost godlike personna. As long as we bear in mind that he was a man with all the faults of men then why should he not continue to be an inspiration to all who value freedom and liberty.
3 months ago
jean harcourt
william wallace may not in actual life be what we would have liked him to be, no doubt hollywood has a lot to answer for in its innaccuracies, but we all love a hero and william wallace was a man for scotland and one who represents the fight for freedom to many in the world who live in places far and near
This comment was removed by a moderator
3 months ago
Alex
• It fails to see events from the medieval mindset! • Uses the same old historians and viewpoints already established in previous programmes of its kind whom, even in light of new evidence still have the same narrow viewpoint of William Wallace! • And biased toward English accounts in battle and tale. STIRLING BRIDGE (all’s fair in love and war): Claims the Scots didn’t fight fairly, they aloud the same number over the bridge as the Scottish army. Yet we are humiliated as being savages for not allowing all the unfair English advantage over, who are primed ready to annihilate us. FALKIRK (Nobility=high ideals/excellent moral character) English nobility became brave only after vast majority of Scots are downed by English archers; get it right for goodness sake, historians’ lol. They were obviously mostly welsh bowman, fact. Besides, hardly the fair-fight the programmers rave on about, even in medieval times archers were considered cowards for not fighting hand to hand. Scottish nobility leg it, hardly noble character there, yet runaway, fight another day maybe, give them that. LONGSHANKS (bully, boaster and backstabber) Definitely had a hand-in the killing of the, Maid of Norway and last bloodline of Alexander III. A ‘child’ basically, killing her for his on greedy unlawful boastful pride. Hammer of the Scots, eh nails should be hammered all the way down, longwanks more like. WALLACE (nobleman and true non-Hollywood hero) Never swore loyalty to Half-hammer never betrayed his country/man, wanted peace but ham-shanks was not noble enough accept his true account, yet when face to face with Sir William saw what true nobility was. No, Wallace stood his ground yet the halfwit was determined to end his most important asset, his life then butchered him like swine and treated him with monstrous unchristian barbarism.
3 months ago
Bronze D
The Romans didn't fail to conquer Scotland - Scotland just had nothing that was worth fighting for. On the other hand, from the Scottish point of view, there were rich pickings in England. For hundreds of years, bands of Scottish raiders, sometimes a thousand strong, harried deep into England, stealing, destroying and raping. Why do you think that so many farms in England were fortified? And why do you think that the English finally got fed up, went on the attack and "hammered" the Scots? The English are always portrayed as being the evil attackers but there are many examples of attacks by the Scottish raiders such as that of English Warkworth where a raiding party of Scots set fire to the church and burnt alive all the townspeople inside or attacked Hexham and killed the choir boys in the abbey. Wallace was executed for his mistreatment of CIVILIANS as well as treason. He was a yob and a barbarian who flayed his enemies and wrapped their skins around his sword hilt. Robin Hood was doubtless a similar yob (if he existed) but his story was about class war between the rich and poor, not about setting one nation against another when we should, by now, be living in harmony, particularly since the Scots have run England since James I and VI and the English have been quite decent about it. Being a part of Britain has given the Scots the sort of world power that they would never otherwise have had. I think that most English are quite happy to cut Scotland loose, particularly after hundreds of years of moaning. I don't think that I want to be associated with a country who gives the statue of their hero the face of a Hollywood actor. Mel Gibson has a lot to answer for and I think that his film succeeded in creating animosity between our two countries beyond his wildest dreams. He must be laughing his head off. Soon after Braveheart came out, a couple of elderly English friends were spat at when they were on holiday in the Highlands just because they were English. The English take the Robin Hood stories with a pinch of salt. As seen in the posts here, the Scots have swallowed Mel Gibson's version hook, line and sinker and get upset if anyone challenges it in an intelligent way.
This comment was removed by a moderator
3 months ago
Alex
Bronze d, small minded Englishman, how can it be treason, when he never swore to him, hammer like i said has to be thorough otherwise it comes undone as it did and the English were kicked out for being in the wrong country and messing with the wrong folk. Arguing who started it is dumb, but no ur history before u babble utter folly, the English were just as bad. u speak with the very English mindset that sadly is to common of old, which is the reason why some many countries find it hard to get on with u, u know, the utter dumbness to think that ur actually god himself and that the world was made for England.
3 months ago
Bronze D
Alex, you said one right thing: the English were just as bad (as the Scots). I can accept that. What I can't accept is that the English were bad and the Scots were fine and noble freedom fighters. At the time, the Scots often fought with the English against fellow Scots because they had no concept of nationhood. It's best not to see ancient history through a modern perspective. In those days, in Scotland, people fought for themselves not for a country - or, at the most, for a particular tribal clan. For instance, the English didn't massacre the Scots at Glencoe - one clan killed another for their own particular ends. No wonder it's called the Glen of Weeping. Tribalism is a bad thing and the English began to get over that round about the 9th century. Will your turn be coming up soon? And WW was executed for crimes against civilians and for treason because the English ruled Scotland at the time. So, simply, it WAS treason. Many English children don't learn much about Scottish/English history at school, just the outline - not because they're not interested but because our teachers realise that giving us all a list of battles during which we smashed the Scots might lead to a celebration of such events and telling us about the hard time that the English in northern England had of it for hundreds of years with Scottish raiders might build up antagonism and was therefore bad manners towards another member of the Union. Unlike the Scots, we neither crow over nor celebrate nor get angry about these historical events to such an extent that a good proportion of English cinema-goers who watched Braveheart thought it was all true. This is how the peace has been kept between us for the past 300 years - the Scots always being accusatory and remembering every fine detail of an often mistold history and the English keeping quiet about it and not defending their own corner. I think the Union has been a remarkable achievement, something exceptional in world history. Sadly, since Braveheart and its lies, many Scots have become agitated enough to demand "Freedom!" Well, when the Union finally breaks up, at least the English will at last have the opportunity to celebrate its own history and tell the truth about our relationship with Scotland without worrying about whether it's PC or not. And, Alex, I'm not a small-minded Englishman: I'm an open-minded EnglishWOMAN with relatives in Scotland and memories of some wonderful holidays north of the border. It's you who are jumping to small-minded conclusions. "O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us/To see oursels as ithers see us!" The English cannot fail to see themselves as others see them because they are constantly being told "the truth" about themselves by outsiders. Too many Scots have yet to take up Rabbie's advice. It's about time you took another look at WW in an honest light.
3 months ago
jimlad
The Scots always forget that Wallace's Galwegians desecrated Hexham Priory, which housed the bones of their OWN saint, Andrew!
3 months ago
Alex
Jimlad: Utter babble, did u watch the film above? He was granted an audience with the pope, written proof was found for this and by that proves ur babble is just that as no pope would help someone who was even scottish if this was done!
3 months ago
Alex
Jimlad; crap u talk! WW had an audience with the pope, no clergy would have been seen let alone talk to anyone scottish, never mind WW who done such things!
3 months ago
David
What utter bigotry by some Scots on here; they cannot accept the facts that WW was on the one hand a Scottish patriot yet most of the claims as to what he acheived are nonesense a figment of imagination by those who wish to inflate the Scottish "freedom" notion. The "famous Wallace Sword" is an obvious fraud too; one wonders how this can still remain on display and taken seriously. I would remind the "Braveheart" types that without the Union with England and Wales Scotland would have remained an economic backwater for 2 centuries and split by wars between clans and selfish "nobles". You know, the nobles who turned in Wallace.
3 months ago
william wallace
Although the Scots comprise less than one-half of 1 percent of the world’s population, 11 percent of all Nobel prizes have been awarded to Scotsmen. Who heard the ancient battlecry? A chieftans bloodied sword held high, To a cloudy cross in the azure sky, Who is a Scot? Who saw proud Wallace's face? Guardian of our Celtic race, Slay tyrants with his sword and mace, Who is a Scot? Who smelt the blood and sensed the fear? Who felt The Bruce's spirit near? At Bannockburn who shed a tear? Who is a Scot? Who knew the pride felt at Arbroath? Which freemen love and tyrants loathe, To sign the pledge and take the oath. Who is a Scot? Who felt the shame and shivered cold? Their heritage and their freedom sold, For a wagonload of tainted gold, Who is a Scot? Who paid a heavy bloodsoaked toll? So foreign powers could ne'er control, My Gaelic heart and Celtic soul, I am a Scot!
3 months ago
Ard righ
Bronze d,rubbish ,to imply this has a hidden agenda for new freedom talks lol really ,the scots do need independence from england we need that yolk lifted off our necks ,so our country prospers not yours ,but its been on the cards for years and this program wont matter either way ,if you knew about scotland as you claim you would of known this,independence would be the best thing for both us ,oh your roman analogy is wrong too ,
This comment was removed by a moderator
3 months ago
Paul
I wonder how English people would feel if their heroes were put under the microscope like this. Every county needs their heroes, I'm sure even your Nelson's and Wellingtons were human.
This comment was removed by a moderator
3 months ago
PKA
Mark I am a little confused didn’t the Campbells of Glenlyon have something to do with the Glencoe massacre and weren’t there more Scots in the government army than in the Jacobite army at Culloden?
3 months ago
Bronze D
William Wallace, if you really want to stoop to number crunching as regards Nobel prize winners then it's just about a draw between our two countries. England is ten times the size of Scotland and has had ten times the number of Nobel prize winners. Moreover, only two of your winners spent all their time in Scotland. At least two of them moved out of Scotland as children and were educated in England and quite a few of the others received their higher and university education in England, did their research in England with the help of English colleagues and died in England. Seems to reflect the words of that famous Scot, Boswell: "The noblest prospect that a Scotchman ever sees is the highroad that leads him to England!" I would say that this reinforces my view that we work well together. I repeat, The Union is a remarkable thing and I shall be sad if it comes to an end, but I DO see the advantages to England and I'm not against the Scots going it alone if that's what they want. And, Paul, the English and their heroes have been constantly under attack for years and we've learned, long before you apparently, that all our idols have feet of clay. As I said above, English history is taught in a very muted way in English schools these days, with patriotism being downplayed, and I reckon that a huge proportion of children have never heard of Nelson and Wellington so few of them would be upset if these historic characters were attacked. Perhaps it's best to live in the present and find 21st century heroes to emulate (if they exist!!) instead of waving flags and weeping over your beer about men who lived HUNDREDS of years ago, who were doubtless products of their time (ie not very nice people) and who we know so little about. As an aside, the medieval Popes received anyone who paid them enough. Ard righ, how did I imply I had a hidden agenda? You're welcome to wipe away some eggy yolk (sic) from your neck - I'd prefer to remove the Scottish YOKE from mine, LOL.
3 months ago
david blake
Nothing can take away from the fact the Sir William existed fought and died for his country. He fought against a very vicious and brutal English imperialism in the shape of edward I. Had it not been for the grotesque anti-Scottishness of the English at that time we would never have heard of him as he would have lived his life in peace. The English brought war and Sir William fought and died for his freedom and that of all Scots of the time. These are the facts the program fails to recount. We love our hero and will love him forever.
3 months ago
Jake Thorn
Bronze D...I suspect your missing the point here rather on purpose. Are you seriously suggesting that the Scots should forget about Sir Wallace? We dont 'weep over beer' when we remember him we remember him with a smile as a brilliant hero and warrior. Had it not been for him we would have ended up like Wales and Ireland [another two countries invaded and mass murdered by numerous English 'heros'] ...nah, we love him and always will. And you dont have a Scottish yoke around your neck, if the English dont have what it takes to have pride in their country then that's your problem, dont blame your problems on us.
3 months ago
Bronze D
OK, so it's a deal then, Jake! I won't blame my country's problems on you but I would really like it if you didn't blame everything on us.....And punching below the belt by dragging in the Irish and the Welsh. My main point is, it doesn't help to harp on about past history because people just get too heated about a period of time that we only have limited info about - but we should be reflecting on how all the countries of these islands CAN be pretty good at working and achieving things together when we put our minds and our energies to it. In the past, I have encouraged foreign visitors to explore the beauties of Scotland, I have corrected them quite sharply when they've called the Scottish "English", I have acknowledged the part that Scotland has played in making Britain great, I have supported Scottish teams in international sporting events (providing they haven't been playing against England, of course), I can play Scottish tunes on the piano, know a lot of Burns' poetry, can sing Scottish songs, have an understanding of Scottish dialect and know how to spell and pronounce unusual Scottish place names. Can you say as much for England and the English? Of course you can have your heroes, but you need to take them with a pinch of salt and acknowledge that it just might have been a far more complicated situation than the story-tellers would like you to believe and not get upset when historians try to give another side to the story.
3 months ago
Jake
I cant remember blaming the English for anything other than the invasions which happened over the course of 800 years. I however, don't blame you, I blame the people of that time. Edward I wasn't a very nice character at all though. 30 000 people were murdered by the his army at Berwick, 3 whole days and nights of slaughter only brought to an end after Edward himself saw a gang of English soldiers hacking to death a pregnant woman. This story was documented by English chroniclers who were there. I suspect this just might have been a motivation for him raising an army in order to prevent such atrocities from happening again. My telling you this is not to harp on about the past but to specifically point out why William and other patriots of his day fought back. For historians to navel gaze and pontificate over motivations and character studies of someone who died over 700 years ago is as pointless unless they acknowledge the motivations for going to war. I have the greatest of respect for the English people and have no beef with anyone, not you or any other English person. I have lived in England [Cornwall and Durham] and have nothing but happy memories. I am a Unionist at heart and would deeply regret any break up of our nation as most other Scots would. My first pen pal was English, my first girlfriend was English and my brother is married to an English lady. The reason for my post is not to push for an argument over how our countries relate to each other today, its about historians trying to second guess someone they are not worthy to judge. They even brought the origin of his sword up. We already know that the hilt and bridle of the sword is over 700 years old and that blade was reworked by James IV sword maker to repair it. So why the big news about that in this documentary? It just smacks of a massive put down....'hey the sword isn't really his'...yeah we know. I have a problem with historians who on the one hand say ..'we don't know anything about him' but still cant resist offering up theories. Theory is not history and what they don't know about they should keep quite about. I believe in the UK as a unitary state and agree we have bonds of history through war and peace that has served us well for 300 years. As I said, I have nothing but respect for my English brothers an sisters and I am glad we enjoy a peace together today denied to our forebears.
3 months ago
Bronze D
Thank you for your response, Jake. Your attitude is probably similar to mine. I know what the English did at Berwick and it was dreadful as were so many other things that happened at the time. They behaved in a different way then and we can't judge them with our own morality. What upsets me is that so many Scots will bring this type of thing up as if they didn't destroy and massacre too. Wallace burned down Hexham, for instance. Somebody mentioned that above and a poster immediately denied it - because it's only the English who do things like that, isn't it? And a raiding party of Scots burned alive all the people of Warkworth shut up in their church. As I said, English children aren't taught this because it leads to tribalism and flag-waving. From an English perspective, Edward I was one of our greatest kings. He was highly intelligent, introduced a lot of good laws and banged together the heads of the barons who had run amok during the weak reign of his father, bringing peace at last. The Welsh had taken advantage of this former situation and had invaded England and controlled English territories along the Welsh borders. Edward won them back and put an end to any further depredations by building his castles. If we live in the present, these castles are now big money-spinners for the Welsh. Edward probably thought he could bring a "Roman peace" to Scotland too with 12 people squabbling over the throne. This was a chance to put an end to all those border wars. He was respected enough to be invited to Scotland and asked to choose someone. Obviously he chose a puppet king. Scottish in-fighting and various rebellions meant that aggro went on between us for hundreds of more years and you missed your chance for an early Union which would have saved thousands of lives. Very little of this is taught in England - again, because it just causes trouble and chanting on the terraces. This reminds me of a cartoon I saw the other day: a man is hunched over his computer and his wife is calling him to bed. "I can't come yet. Someone on the internet is WRONG!!" I, too, hope the Union doesn't break up. But, if the Scots vote to go, then I won't stop them because I can also see that it might be good for the English too. However, I think it will sadly cause a lot of bad feeling because, when you are no longer "one of us", the English will feel free to say all the things that they've been biting their tongues about for years. Both of us will be waving our flags like mad (a bad thing) and I shall be very sorry that we have lost this amazing and very special relationship.
3 months ago
Bronze D
PS Eight thousand, not 30,000 (!) people were killed in Berwick. I know that this is bad enough, but it's these gross distortions of history that stick in my gullet, like Wallace's sack of York (no, it was Hexham, but York sounds better, doesn't it?) and the defaming of Edward I and his wife to make the English even more villainous and the Scots more sexy and wonderful. Aren't historical facts interesting enough? The current population is about 11,000, so I don't see where 30,000 people would have come from.
3 months ago
Jake Thorn
You say it was '8000' then go on to say that because the current population if only 11 000 then the figure of 30 000 is some how not possible. Berwick was one of the biggest towns within 'Britain' at the time with a massive population of up to 40 000 people. After its sacking and complete destruction the border was redrawn [as you can see from the shape of the current border with the little hook encapsulating Berwick] and the town annexed . I am afraid that far from being a distortion it is true that the population of Berwick was murdered in its entirety. Were talking not just men but everybody, women and children included. The lowest figure to be put on the massacre by any source is 17 000. The Scots are not to blame for a Hollywood movie and its depictions of our history any more than the English have control over Robin Hood being portrayed as a man in tights. How Hollywood portrays the English is Hollywood's concern, not mine. There is no record of Wallace murdering women and children, in fact the Lanercrost Chronicles states that Wallace had two of his men executed for stealing from a church in Northern England and the Priest was given protection to perform Mass. As far English people holding your tongues are concerned I must admit this is something I have never noticed. The English viewpoint is being laddled out on a daily basis via news papers and media nationwide, the bbc in particular never covers news from Wales, Scotland or Ulster especially when there's important stories about David Beckham's new shoes to tell us about. But over the past 2 months the media is covering the up coming referendum and it seems to be a bit too much for our cousins across the wall. It might be wise for our English friends to consider just how much the Scots have contributed to the UK over the past 300 years...the disproportionate number of men in the armed forces fighting to defend the nation is but one example. If there's something you need to get off your chest about us then please feel free...
3 months ago
Alex
Jake, well said on both accounts, but alas, Bronze has a typical English mindset, best leave her to pig out on her bitterness. English mindset = coz every country dislikes their past cruelness and arrogance this somehow interprets as jealousy on behalf of other countries.
3 months ago
Alex
Longshanks is probably burning in hell next to Hitler for his unchristian barbarism done against, Welsh, Irish, French, Scots, Jews and probably own kin too.
3 months ago
Bronze D
Alex has a typical Scottish mindset (although perhaps I'm being a bit sweeping there and unfair to most Scots) - one that is certain that the only cruelties ever done in the world were done by the English. I said I was talking about Edward I from an English perspective and, from that perspective, he was a good king. Attacking Wales and Scotland was a form of defence because we had endured their raids for hundreds of years and he wanted to put an end to it once and for all. From our position, that sounded like a good idea. He was no more cruel than any other ruler/leader of that period. If the Scots had been "the winners", I wonder what barbarism they would have been responsible for? After all, William Wallace made a point of flaying his English prisoners. The truth (as far as we know) of what everyone did to each other at that time was bad enough. Why don't people just stick with it instead of making up all that rubbish like they did in Braveheart? I don't think that the Scots are jealous of the English because they (the Scots) have got enough to be proud of - but these attacks on us do seem to stem from some sense of inadequacy that I just can't get to grips with. I mean, what has driven you to use such offensive phrases like: "Let her pig out on her own bitterness"? Being rude just makes you look very chippy and increases my puzzlement over why. After all, I've just said you can go if you want to or stay and I'll be pleased (presumably because I like you - or most of you, LOL. That doesn't include Alex at the moment).
3 months ago
Alex
Bronze: eh the Scots did win, hence 'to think again' you see what I mean by arrogance. Bitterness i stand by as you claim the Scots are responsible for English insecurities, get a grip Miss D everyone nows the English were utter bastards at that time, 100 Year Wars, Independence Wars, its simple u guys bullied nations and committed horrific crimes, its a simple fact, but ur a smart woman and u know this shame on you. And stop switching between the film and historical WW ur confusing urself. i was brought up in England and schooled and worked all over.
3 months ago
Bronze D
I've just watched a programme about the British (English, I think you would say) Empire on BBC1 and I think that this illustrates that we are honest with ourselves - unlike you, Alex. It owns up to the atrocities, the twisted sense of doing God's will, the unfortunate way we often started a pot boiling but then ran away and let it boil over. The English can own up to this and take it on the chin. I'm waiting for the Scots to produce equally honest programmes about their history. When they do - as with this one on William Wallace - there's an outcry and a denial. Oh, and BTW, in the middle of the atrocities in India, the pictures showed an awful lot of Scottish kilts. I shall now sit back and wait for you to explain how these weren't REALLY the Scots but the English in disguise because you are completely incapable of doing such things so it must be all a Sassenach plot. To get back on track: the programme that we're supposed to be discussing was about the image of WW in Braveheart and the real WW - which explains why I'm switching from one to the other. And I find it difficult to discuss things like the 100 Years' War with people who have such a simplistic understanding of history. People will insist on viewing medieval history with a modern eye and getting it all wrong. Our behaviour in the middle ages was no better and no worse than that of any other country - when they got the upper hand and had the opportunity to misbehave that is. AND, if we didn't "win", why are you so uptight about us? And my final questions: Did the Scots ever commit any atrocities, in your opinion or were they always as pure as the driven snow? Why does more than half of Scotland live in England? And should the Scots in England get the vote in a referendum? That last one is asked out of genuine curiosity.
3 months ago
Jake Thorn
Bronze D this will be my last post on the subject as I cant really find anymore time to be debating this back and forward so whatever you reply to I will read but wont reply to, so forgive me. As far as winning the war to regain our independence its a war we did win. The Bruce offered the English the kind of terms of peace that defied logic. He even accepted English Knights surrender and even sent back King Edward II battle standard and shield that had been left behind as he fled. Edward II accepted no terms and continued to push for more war. Even Edward III at the age of 16 cried himself to sleep when a battle between the Scots and the English never took place...etc etc etc. Only in 1328 after 30 years of death was it finally over when England accepted Scotland's right to exist. As far as Scots committing atrocities during this war then we did. We also committed acts of violence in Ireland. Men known as the Black and Tans were the killers of Irish republicans and the Tans were from all parts of the UK sent by the British government to stamp out Irish freedom fighters. During the days of Empire we also did our fair share of killing. What this tells us about a show on Wallace I dont know. I am not saying the English are evil. no people are evil but certain leaders at certain points in history were worse than others and i'm afraid that from a Scots point of view Edward I was a complete bastard. You on the other hand see him in a different way which I accept. Braveheart was a largely fictional account however the basic facts of the film were true, he lived, fought, seen his wife murdered, won and lost battles, was betrayed and martyred. I have enjoyed our little chat here on cyberspace, I wish you well. There are always hero's and villains in war, sometimes it was us, and other times it was someone else...I mean, who can deny the villain was William the Conqueror and the hero poor Harold Godwinson?
3 months ago
Bronze D
I'm sorry that Jake isn't returning so that I could thank him for the exchange of views we've had. He's gone about it in the right manner. I understand the historic difference of viewpoint that the English and the Scots have and I also perfectly understand that, if I were a Scot, I would see Edward as a bastard. I know the history of the aftermath of Wallace and my "winning" term did not refer to this and I can no longer be bothered to explain, particularly if Jake is no longer there. My final words: I'm very unhappy about any military person being held up for admiration. As I said, English schools hardly mention former English "heroes" any more but concentrate on things like the Industrial Revolution (in which the Scots played no mean part), the history of medicine, women's rights etc. The Scots, IMO, but probably not in theirs, should be downplaying people like WW and elevating the really great men of science, medicine, literature etc - of which they have a large number. These are the men and women who really count and whom one can truly have pride in when one comes to tot things up at the end of the day.
This comment was removed by a moderator
This comment was removed by a moderator
This comment was removed by a moderator
This comment was removed by a moderator
This comment was removed by a moderator
This comment was removed by a moderator
3 months ago
Alex
Bronze you are confusing historical accounts again! WW it is, uptight lol, why would I be, we won that part in history. Modern eye, did u read my 1st comment? As far as the union is concerned, it's good that it ended the wars between this island however it focused on other countries and atrocities followed, is that really something to be proud of? Born in Scotland u should have the vote! have a good day Bronze x
3 months ago
Alex
RJM are you serious are saying Hitler was a christian..?
3 months ago
Leigh
Most of Scotlands "History is based on mith" second rate country tring to match up to England,never going to happen lol.
3 months ago
Coolio
I think William Wallace is Cool and he likes killing people but he stole my Beer
3 months ago
William is real
I am totaly with u dude
3 months ago
Yorkshire Scot
The film "Braveheart" took a true story, and through over-simplification of a complex historical situation and the addition of some laughable embellishments, made it well-nigh impossible to have a rational discussion of the subject. Certain Scottish politicians who should know better used its popularity for their own ends; certain English historians dismissed it in words such as "Well, they haven't got much history, so I suppose they've got to make it up". "Debunking" programmes such as "Braveheart: The True Story" make the situation worse by concentrating on the flaws and faults, to give the impression that nothing is true or admirable in Wallace's story. Anyone with little knowledge of Scotland's history - and regrettably that includes too many Scots - might find a decent book on the subject an entertaining read. Unfortunately, the best ever popular history of Scotland "The Lion in the North" by (Englishman) John Prebble isn't in print at the moment, but there are available good books by (Scot) Neil Oliver and (Icelander) Magnus Magnusson.
3 months ago
uglyfatbloke
Alex - there is no evidence to suggest that Edward I was involved in tjhe death of Princess Margaret, and since there were well-advaned plans to for his son to marry her it would hardly have been in his interests. Not a very good history programme I'm afraid; but that's not unusual. Incidentally, the repeated assertion that Wallace was an outlaw before the war is based on an asumption that the WIlliam Wallace in the Plea Rols was one and the same Wiliam Wallace that became the Guardian a year or so later. That is cetainly possible, but is no more than a maybe...and Yorkshire; John Prebble's book may be entertaining, but it is very poor history; try Ranald Nicholson or Michael Brown or Amanda Beam instead - or of course Fiona Watson.
3 months ago
Alex
The marriage would have given the Plantagenets more claim to the Scottish crown, (Duh) Yet on the death of Alexander III, the marriage plans were void, and so Longshanks invented another way into the crown, through the Scottish nobles, but thus having to remove the true bloodline for his on gain. King Alexander never envisaged that one coming. I am a teacher and historian, I thank you for your comments.
This comment was removed by a moderator
This comment was removed by a moderator
This comment was removed by a moderator
3 months ago
Andy
What utter rubbish. The way a purely speculative science can justify an hour of my life making scathing claims about a work of fiction. Do they believe that Scots think that the Aussie made a factually accurate film is almost as patronising as Camerons speech. The lack of any kind of hero from England, even whose legend merits telling of a story, where dragons do not exist, simply exasperates their lack of any pride in their own history. They don't even have your own national anthem. This whole story strikes of sour grapes. I hope the next "true story" focuses closer to home to highlight some of the shortcomings of the south. I am a proud to be british and not nationalist by any stretch, but such poor production and clear intention of this episode is very disappointing. I truly pity those involved.
1 month ago
Gary B
This whole series is total rubbish in every way. Each episode might have been written by a 10 year old. How the makers can get away with labelling it "True" is beyond me. The latest episode states as fact that more sailors died from splinters rather than the cannonball that made them. This is absolute bottom-gravy. My guess is that American gullibility is at work in either the research (if any was actually done) or the desire to make the story "awwesomme".