The moment that you can see them lower their lances and begin to scream, I cannot imagine the bravery needed to stand your ground in the face of a moment like that.
@@claytonrainey7531 Depends on how CGI is used. If it replaces EVERYTHING, it's bad (and WAY too many films today do this). But if it's used for stuff like Jurassic Park, well that's amazing.
And they're suddenly on the ground in front of them before they lift them up. They're not there in previous shots, either because of bad continuity monitoring or because its implied that they secretly slid the pikes up through the ranks while the cavalry was charging. They can't have been meant to be in front all along, because the cavalry would see them and stop the charge. They should have shown them sliding the pikes forward.
@@capnhawkins the camera never goes below the scots waists until 1:09(unless you were commenting about shots outside this video here) and at 1:09 we seen the pikes in front of the men. On a side note, I feel like the short cut that shows the pikes already up is purposeful as it shows the audience what’s coming. Brendan Gleason intensely looks with a side eye as he gets anxious because the horses are getting closer, and the spears being up adds to the intensity for the audience and the eagerness and stress the scots feel as they don’t want the horses to get so close that they can’t raise the pikes in time.
1:52 is one of the moments where you can tell either there was an editing mistake (unlikely) or the editor and director wanted to extend the tension of the charge but the only footage of the Scots at that distance was of them already with their spears up -- so they inserted that brief cut out of order in the hope that the viewer would just go with it (and by and large they do, it tends to only be noticed on repeat viewings).
I remember this scene being played on tv as a trailer to Braveheart. It did'nt show the full scene and I was hooked already. Desperately wanted to see. What an awesome movie
William Wallace yes i like it as historical accurate as possible. I don’t know about my favorite movie, but seen from a historical accurate point of view, I see the HBO Serie Rome and Rome II as my favorite.
@@jasip1000yes it’s very historically inaccurate. William Wallace wasn’t anywhere near as much of a warrior fighting on the front lines as he’s made out to be in this film and like you pointed out about the river and bridge but it’s still an amazing film regardless of the historical inaccuracy.
Mailed knights against Highland rabble. They only failed, cause the goofs weren't paying attention, and charged right at the stakes. Come to think of it, I don't think any Scottish units could place stakes. Bloody cheaters.
Trained men, plated armor with chainmail underneath, armored horses with some having leather facemasks traveling at over 25 to 30mph with 6 foot lances racing towards you. Yes, that's probably the most terrifying thing
There were only two rows of horses, so how would they expect to kill all the scots? I know that the scots at the front would be killed, but the horses would easily be swarmed after, no?
@@joeessen1059 Cavalry charges like that were meant to break morale. Historically though they would have very rarely charged like that, especially into packed formations.
Always been fascinated at the creative weaponry designed to club, gouge, rip, slice, etc. For an interesting treatment of such tools of war read Desmond Seward's The Hundred Years War. The Battle of Bannockburn is mentioned although it preceded the war.
Great Western MGM yup if anything it would make braveheart more iconic. As battle scene on a bridge has never been done before. They essentially just make this look like the battle of bannockburn and subbed in William Wallace instead of Robert the Bruce
Cavalry charges were very successful during that era, because most infantry was made up of peasants drafted by lords to fight battles they knew nothing and cared little about. As a result of being fearful and ill trained, A lance would easily smash through enemy lines. This scene demonstrates just how terrifying it would be to have 100's of horses galloping towards you. However, this battle demonstrates how it can be countered by a front line that can properly brace such a charge.
I'm sure I watched this as a child. But rewatching it as an adult, I was kinda curious what William Wallace (was that his name?) had in mind in the face of that kind of incoming charge from the English Knights. They just looked like a bunch of skirmishers, maybe berserkers, just some infantrymen, getting charged by top of the line Knights. I can hardly imagine the costs for each horse, from purchase to upkeep to training, and then, the riders with their complex armour and their riding training, the discipline lessons to keep them in line and following orders. Meanwhile, at the last minute, William Wallace gets his men to drop their weapons and pick up some cleverly hidden pikes, literally straight pieces of wood with sharp points at the end, like, really cheap stuff that you can probably make easily 40 or more each day, per man, if you wanted to, if you get a decent supply of wood, and in Scotland, that really shouldn't be a problem. It'll be massively demoralising for the English army to lose such expensive troops to such a cheap counter tactic. But their commander was a bit puffed up and full of himself. He had completely underestimated his opponent and had taken his own victory for granted. I guess it serves him right, but I've got a soft spot for those horses. Lovely creatures. They deserved better. But what can you do? It's war. And they are just doing their jobs.
This 1995 film was to my memory the last one in which they actually showed a cavalry charge with proper lances. Even Ridley Scott seems to have forgotten about them in the Kingdom of Heaven, and had the cavalry charge with simple spears instead. And after that, films such as Outlaw King or The King didn't give a shit about it. The battle of Agincourt without lances... The filmmakers are getting more stupid with time, apparently.
During the timeline of the Kingdom of Heaven (late 12th century) the lances of European knight were indeed still just simple spears. Maybe a bit longer and thicker than normal spears but it hasnt yet acquired the distinctive hourglass shape and the vamplate (handguard) and graper (flange to ease the couching of the lance against the armpit) that so distinguished the archetypical European medieval lance. The vamplate and the graper only started to see use late in the 13th century. For the other movies though yes the knights should carry a more typical medieval 'lance'.
This battle was won because William went to school and tracked Europe. He knew how to beat mounted Calvary. The Greeks. He was fully educated at this fight. He took years of culture from past empires and showed them. How a long sharp stick is still king. Even today
I saw this scene as a kid and it fucked me up lol. My mouth dropped and my grandma had to keep telling me it was fake but I was just a kid so I didn’t rewatch til I was 18. Now at almost 30 I’m trying to find the behind the scenes for this. Absolutely amazing, how tf did they get the horses to do all that without someone getting actually hurt? And the practical effect wounds… just fucking amazing. A truly legendary movie
Guys, to all those who complain about the movie being inaccurate or not very well edited: When Braveheart hit the cinemas, it was 1995. You know the 90's, most of you have already been arround at that time. It was a time when movies about sharks running amok and a fuckton of different dinosaurs being bred from blood found in preserved mosquitos came out. Hollywood made a huge pile of money with that kind of stuff, cause people enjoyed it. Entertainment was all those movies were about, no one gave a fuck about historical accuracy. In terms of editing, just think about how VHS worked or the quality of TV screens itself. In those short cutscenes, only the most socially isolated basement dwelling movie nerd would have noticed mistakes like that, and even if he did, the internet wasn't that much of a thing back then, so not too much people would've gotten the chance to learn about those observations. Creators were very well aware of their mistakes, but what were they supposed to do? Do the whole scene with at times hundreds of actors again, though due to the low resolution standards of that time nobody was even able to notice flaws like a car flashing up for a second or the Scots holding up their pikes before Wallace gave them the order to? Movies are costly, and no director would've thrown money out of the window just because of being afraid of what people would say in 25 years, when their technique finally allows said basement dwelleing movie nerds to find those flaws and make them public.
Very well said my friend I couldn’t agree with you more. I was in my early 20s when I saw this in the theater and was impressed with it. Modern day keyboard warrior/critics be damned.
Mel Gibson is one of the best actors ever and also one of the best directors. This film was a masterpiece. Regardless of the massive historical inaccuracies. William Wallace wasn’t anywhere near as much of a warrior as he’s made out to be in this film for a start.
Not the heroic, semi-mythical freedom fighter historians in this country light to paint him as. His soldiers partook in mass rape, arson, looting and organised butchery of civilians, including women and children and he also gave the order for the thirteenth century terror tactics.
To be fair, the approaching cavalry probably had no idea they had spears - well, if you can call pointy sticks that. To them it probably just looked like actual sticks.
There is no bridge, yet it's the battle of Sterling Bridge The Scots didn't wear kilts - in reality kilts came centuries later, They would of had clothing & armor similar to their enemy. They didn't have blue face paint Bagpipes also didn't exist in 13th Century Scotland Most of them don't have actual weapons, I see a few farming tools in there. In reality, the Scots where just as well armed as their opponents. Either way, great movie.
How is it possible that this is in 4k? Didn't they record it in a much smaller resolution? Or did they record it on a high res. Has it been AI remastered, or what?
I've had to (Dad was a horseman) stand in front of a horse running at me. Just one horse. 1:44 brought all fear in that moment right back. HR increased just viewing w/o sound. Btw, it was Dad's Appaloosa, and it was in pasture. He (the horse, not Dad) was a late geld and thought he was a stallion and acted like it. So when 12 yr old me closed the gate Sam Scratch's ears went up and he charged me to defend his mares and fillies. Dad taught me to stand still and raise my arms and show him the harness& lead and he'd stop. He did. I suffered nothing but wet undies.
This battle never happened this way, and the one who came with the long spears to face the cavalry was robert the bruce, who was depected as a traitor in braveheart, at the battle of loudoun hill. Moreover, the title braveheart was given to robert the bruce and not to william wallace
I hardly believe that soldiers would've benn able to hold those spears in their hands after horses clashing into them. An average horse weighs around 400 kg, and its speed is around 80 km per hour. Imagine what a powerful hit it would be-horse running into spear. It's impossible to hold that spear in hands, all soldiers holding it would fly up into air after that severe hit.
I think they used the soil for leverage (maybe partly dug in) and combined with the density of the spears (ca. 4 per horse or so) plus the horses decelerating at the last moment due to fear of running into a pointy object makes it somewhat plausible, but I could be wrong.
@@Mitjitsu No, it's quite the contrary. The breeds used for war during the Middle ages in Europe have gone extinct since a long time, but it's generally accepted they were as tall and large as a field hunter. The Frison is arguably what we have closest to the medieval chargers.
Was the real battle of Stirling was at a bridge where the english got trapped at one side unable to retreat because their leader destroyed the bridge to prevent the Scots advancing forward seeing the enemy was winning not an empty field like this?
Lol, Braveheart has more accurate history in it than Gladiator, 300, Troy and The Last Samurai combined. But I'm guessing you don't get butthurt about those other movies and consider them very historical.
@@dnajournal4321 You seem to be the only one getting butthurt over it, since you're hunting down comments that say it's inaccurate and having a go at people. Even the ones that say they don't really care about the inaccuracies.
@@dnajournal4321 It isn't selective. We've literally had governments condemn movies for historical inaccuracies before. Braveheart gets called out because it makes a lot of bizarre choices, but it's far from the only movie that gets that treatment.
@@Pizza23333 Every movie takes some creative liberty to make it entertaining within 2 hours. Braveheart is more accurate than: Catch Me if You Can Ford vs Ferrari 300 Gladiator. The English oppressed. Scots fought back. Scots were disunited. Wallace was caught by a fellow Scot. At his trial, all he said was he didn't commit treason as he was never an English subject.
@@Pilum1000 A mistake nonetheless. Surprise or not. That's not how to use cavalry as the first action in a battle. Cavalry are used as flankers or to take on other cavalry. Depending if it's shock or anti-cav. Shock cavalry are used to hit them from the sides or rear flanks when the infantry has engaged each other. To deal with other cavalry. (Like those lances are used for.) Or to chase down fleeing troops. Or go after archers. Or go after siege teams. Charging head on into infantry using lances is a dumb idea. Those weapons aren't meant for fighting infantry, that's why cavalry with swords do that. Because lances can't do much in hand-to-hand range, it's not practical. You might lance someone, but then you got this long weapon that's hard to deal with people who are up close to you.
@@LucidDream learn more war history. In general, i don't understand why you wrote all of this... Because what any more situations did happen de facto in history, and the arguments about cavalry with swords or with spears are just stupid; of course you can attack an infantry (not the phalanx) with spears. This is better. And swords won't help here at all ... Some nonsense...
With ease the cavalry could destroy them, you think its so easy to stand against 500 hundred horses charging at you, you would probably start running leaving your place. You need some balls to stand there even by holding a long heavy pike.
@@LucidDream those are heavy cavalry... And their role is to break the line of the infantry what you are talking about are the light cavalry, heavy and lights have different roles
I would say knights. Solid Plate armor wasn't typical of a knight until the mid 1300s and early 1400s. This is supposed to be placed in 1297. One of the least accurate things about the movie was the armor worn by the English knights. At this stage most would have been wearing mail from head to toe with great-helms or kettle hats and with coats of plates on their torso. Gibson has them wearing some weird lamellar thing. By coats of plates, look up brigandine armor. Fantasy sources refer to Brigandine as studded leather armor, when in reality, the studs are actually rivets holding the plates on the inside of the fabric.
It would have been a mixture of actual Knights with a title, squires, and household retainers trained as men-at-arms at the same level. Because of the expense to purchase and maintain their horses, weapons, and armor, the English mounted and dismounted Knights (after their war with Scotland they often preferred to fight dismounted with their archers) would have all been within the nobility or directly employed by the noble's household to serve the King as their feudal obligation. So a Lord or a landed Knight might bring himself and 10 men-at-arms from his land to serve and be organized into the army. Often times they would have been handpicked boys from their land or sons of people in his service trained from boyhood as professional soldiers. Many of these men-at-arms household retainers might be lowborn and are not bestowed the title of "Sir," but they are would been trained as knights for battle. That same Lord or Knight with these men in their service could grow old or be unfit for battle, in England, he could send his retainers in his place and/or pay tax in coin to the King. Nobility paying their service was equally as good in the complexity of the England's crown authority because it allowed the King to contract mercenaries into their armies and supplement the ranks. This became quite common in the later period.
boy imagine during these fights you got struck where was available. your eyes, fingers, piecees of your arm leg etc...any and everywhere got sliced and diced...
¡Una escena espectacular! Lástima que en términos documentales el film es un total disparate. Un cúmulo de errores de principio a fin que echan por el vertedero la, por otra parte, intensa experiencia cinematográfica. Por ejemplo: Los ropajes y la uniformidad, el armamento y la cronología del film no corresponden al período histórico en el que se desenvolvió realmente nuestro aciago protagonista. Sin ánimo de ser exhaustivo: 1- Escocia no era un pueblo sometido bajo el yugo inglés. Por el contrario, ingleses y escoceses convivían en paz y en términos de colaboración sincera. Es cierto que "Piernas Largas" ocupó Escocia por un período no mayor a dos años, debido a una serie de traiciones perpetradas por la nobleza escocesa, que aprovecharon el vacío de poder. 2- El auténtico Wallace pertenecía a una familia influyente de la baja nobleza. El padre de Wallace pagaba tributo al reino inglés, al que debía su acomodada posición de poder. Una familia respetada políticamente y bollante en lo económico. 3- William Wallace era un individuo con rasgos psicopáticos muy acentuados, que presentaba una facilidad innerente para medrar en el escalafón social. No dudaba en traicionar y asesinar a todo aquel que le representase un obstáculo, por mínimo que fuese. 4- William era un hombre sediento de sangre que solía trabajar como soldado mercenario. Incluso llegó a formar parte del ejército inglés en varias ocasiones como arquero (el arco era el arma heráldica de su familia). 5- El "héroe escocés" tenía cinturones elaborados con piel humana e incluso llegaba a "coleccionar" las orejas, las manos y los penes de sus adversarios que él mismo ejecutaba arbitrariamente. 6- Wallace era un hombre mal considerado por los suyos. Un tipo que tenía fama de peligroso y cruel. Su ajusticiamiento fue celebrado con profusión. Saludos desde Pontevedra
If this really happened , then as the daylight turned to twilight in the waning hours after the massacre of those English by the Scotts , the knights captured alive and stripped of their clothes and naked must have known that those sharpened poles would be used to impale them through both orifices .
