Kingdoms of the Isles - Signatures

[The Bruce]

Just needed more clan warfare in it

And better accents!

[The Border Reiver]

And better accents!

Here I was thinking Christopher Lambert was Scottish

[The Bruce]

Connery was playing an Egyptian who had been living in Spain!

I like the way Bruces nice sunny picture can turn so easily to rain and storm with photoshop

If I had taken it 10 minutes later it would not have needed photoshop!

However there were two tourists in the original picture that I 'shopped out.

[The Border Reiver]

Was connery an egyptian...but he was the only one in the movie who had a Scottish accent! This film has Randall Wallace all over it


Very professionally done with your photo by the way!

[smoesville]

Connery was playing an Egyptian who had been living in Spain!



If I had taken it 10 minutes later it would not have needed photoshop!

However there were two tourists in the original picture that I 'shopped out.

Stupid tourists; always getting in the way

[PrestigeX]

I think a lot of people who didn't like the movie, try to pick out little bits from the movie to show as being 'inaccurate'. I recently watched the movie again, and I think the historical accuracy is pretty good in most ways.

The highlanders wearing all the plaids and stuff and the face paint, is not correct but their battle attire was pretty realistic. They're mostly shown with leather armor and shields, and for some of them swords. Thats pretty accurate, wallace as a minor noble would probably have a sword and maybe some less expensive armor --- BUT, armor is incredibly expensive in this time period so it would not be common for the Scots.

When they show the english knights with chainmail, and more elaborate bascinets or great helms its pretty realistic, meanwhile the common troops have standard helmets and what look like leather/metal scale armor or brigatine armor. A lot of people might say "oh it's not accurate" but i'd wager that probably was a very common type of armor because its a lot cheaper/easier to construct than chainmail - and while not being as durable, thats probably why it's harder to find any surviving examples.

The Stirling bridge with no bridge... Maybe the bridge is just beyond where the english lines are? So these people are taken offensive because they didn't show a bridge... Okay so if they shot a sequence with english crossing a bridge, and then the EXACT same battle = they'd be fine. The scots started the battle before the entire english army could form up in battle lines. Basically the movie shows, the scots and english engaging quickly and while the scots are supposed to rout the english and chase them to the river = its totally forgivable.

The only things that are silly and even offensive to historical accuracy are...

A - depicting Edward 1 as such an evil man, because he was in fact one of england's greatest and noblest kings. He made innovations in war, and in Legal proceedings. He was actually known for his clemency, and had even participated in a Crusade as a child. Him warring with the welsh and scots, it wasn't as though these neighbours were living in total peace - ongoing disputes and wars and raids happened across the borders for centuries... His trying to take over control probably had more to do with English security than wanting to "Breed them out" as the film shows ie = ( a free scotland/wales can be safe havens for rebellous barons/dukes who wish to gain support and raise an army, as history has shown repeadedly in the Isles - not to mention edward 1's came to power after the baronnial wars).

B - French princess getting [against the ToS] by wallace. just pathetic and silly, put into the movie to add a soft and well rounded touch to the movie.

[The Bruce]

Click to view content: 

I think a lot of people who didn't like the movie, try to pick out little bits from the movie to show as being 'inaccurate'. I recently watched the movie again, and I think the historical accuracy is pretty good in most ways.

The highlanders wearing all the plaids and stuff and the face paint, is not correct but their battle attire was pretty realistic. They're mostly shown with leather armor and shields, and for some of them swords. Thats pretty accurate, wallace as a minor noble would probably have a sword and maybe some less expensive armor --- BUT, armor is incredibly expensive in this time period so it would not be common for the Scots.

When they show the english knights with chainmail, and more elaborate bascinets or great helms its pretty realistic, meanwhile the common troops have standard helmets and what look like leather/metal scale armor or brigatine armor. A lot of people might say "oh it's not accurate" but i'd wager that probably was a very common type of armor because its a lot cheaper/easier to construct than chainmail - and while not being as durable, thats probably why it's harder to find any surviving examples.

The Stirling bridge with no bridge... Maybe the bridge is just beyond where the english lines are? So these people are taken offensive because they didn't show a bridge... Okay so if they shot a sequence with english crossing a bridge, and then the EXACT same battle = they'd be fine. The scots started the battle before the entire english army could form up in battle lines. Basically the movie shows, the scots and english engaging quickly and while the scots are supposed to rout the english and chase them to the river = its totally forgivable.

The only things that are silly and even offensive to historical accuracy are...

A - depicting Edward 1 as such an evil man, because he was in fact one of england's greatest and noblest kings. He made innovations in war, and in Legal proceedings. He was actually known for his clemency, and had even participated in a Crusade as a child. Him warring with the welsh and scots, it wasn't as though these neighbours were living in total peace - ongoing disputes and wars and raids happened across the borders for centuries... His trying to take over control probably had more to do with English security than wanting to "Breed them out" as the film shows ie = ( a free scotland/wales can be safe havens for rebellous barons/dukes who wish to gain support and raise an army, as history has shown repeadedly in the Isles - not to mention edward 1's came to power after the baronnial wars).

B - French princess getting [aginst the ToS] by wallace. just pathetic and silly, put into the movie to add a soft and well rounded touch to the movie.

Circumventing the censor and the ToS is not acceptable, sorry. Whether we like it or not that's the rules we have to live by.

That said, I'm really not sure what your are getting at. Braveheart is a great film with some gross historical inaccuracies. Pointing out the parts they got right does not change this.

As entertainment it is fine and one could argue that it conveys the story of Scotland's resistance and ultimate triumph against English domination in a way that is broadly true to history.

However there is nothing wrong with discussing the inaccuracies depicted and several of them are pretty major.

To take one example, Stirling Bridge was not just a battle fought near a bridge. The bridge was the tactical centre of the battle. If it had been staged accurately (as was originally intended) I'm sure it would have been a much better scene!

It is certainly true that the portrayal of Edward I is a caricature in the classic hollywood sense. However the picture you paint of him is equally biased (if not more so).

Edward personally supervised the sacking of Berwick. Thousands of men, women and children were butchered over 3 days. Edward only ceased the violence when he saw a woman giving birth as she was being killed. Yet you say he was "one of england's greatest and noblest kings"and "he was actually known for his clemency".

Edward is much praised for his legal reforms and yet they were mostly concerned with increasing bureaucracy to safeguard and extend his sovereignty. One of the laws he passed was to expel all Jews from England although they were not allowed to take their wealth and property with them. At no time does the movie suggest that Edward was not a great 'legal mind" of his time.

Only an extreme English propagandist could claim that Edward had any legitimate reason to conquer Wales and attempt to conquer Scotland.

Scotland had been at peace with England for nearly 100 years and posed no threat whatsoever to England at the time. Edward seized on the failure of the Scottish succession to exert his power, obtain promises of cooperation under duress and make impossible demands of Scotland's nobility. Such manoeuvrings are of course entirely typical of medieval monarchs.

Edward was a great military commander and did much to improve (from his point of view) the English legal system. He was also a tyrant capable of extreme cruelty and the major purpose in his life seems to be the acquisition of power regardless of the rights of others.

Edward, like the Bruce, was a man of his time. When examined closely their actions paint a complex picture that is not easily reconciled with the shining examples we tend to seek as national heroes.

.

[smoesville]

In fairness any historical figure is viewed differently depending on where you live. For example english school children are taught Cromwell was a great man(he did achieve a great deal even if most of it was abolished later) while irish school children are taught that he was a butcher (which he was). Personally i still think he's a butcher but there's no denying the rest of his life.

[mochi]

about EDU file
attributes of veryhady or hardy will make general's unit not retreating from battlefield and will often die
changing general's unit's morale under about 5 will make he retreat frequently
and for balancing, it is desirable to increase unit's some attacking parameters
the 5th and 6th parameter of "soldiers" in unit data should be small for avoiding killed by range attack

about Hitpoints
increasing general's personal hitpoints by traits is better than increasing hitpoints of all soldiers in general's unit because general alone will survive and retreat even when the unit rout by much casualities

about scripts
general often killed when he is in a town or castle, so make him keeping outside of then by scripting
and if you want to expect some generals more roles, give then units directly by script, it is example below

monitor_event CharacterTurnEnd Trait Pyrrhos > 1
and not FactionIsLocal
if EndedInSettlement
console_command mp "Pyrrhos of_Epeiros" 15
move Pyrrhos of_Epeiros, 293, 130
end_if
if RandomPercent < 5
console_command create_unit "Pyrrhos of_Epeiros" "indian elephant" 1 2 0 0
end_if
end_monitor

[Celtichugs123]

Hellow, mates from Scotland. What yuor opinion about Mal Gibson and "Brave heart". Is it historically accurate or not?

Worst historical film around. A great movie though.

[Lord Condormanius]

Worst historical film around. A great movie though.

The Last Legion was the worst historical film, but your point is well taken, nonetheless.

[pipedreamdan]

was it intended to be an actual historical film? most likely no. it told the story well and had a high entertainment value. if you want a historical film on this it would be a documentary on the history channel most likely. not to say it would be boring, i would actually enjoy it as would others, but Braveheart was just a movie based on the events in William Wallace's life. its a motivational story.

[Celtichugs123]

was it intended to be an actual historical film? most likely no. it told the story well and had a high entertainment value. if you want a historical film on this it would be a documentary on the history channel most likely. not to say it would be boring, i would actually enjoy it as would others, but Braveheart was just a movie based on the events in William Wallace's life. its a motivational story.

Yes, I totally agree. However, there's being a little inaccurate for theatrical value's sake and wholly inaccurate!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but William Wallace was of Scoto-Norman decent and lowlander, land-owner. Kilts as we see them in the film weren't worn untill the 16th century. English opression did not start in Scotland till the 17th/18th centuries. Robert De Bruce had an illness and I don't think his father had leprosey, though I'm not sure on that one. King Edward's son does not get married untill after William Wallaces death and therefore William Wallace meeting the French maiden, i feel is just plain stupid. Also the entire film is filmed in Ireland, which was the right idea, but man does it feel the young Scots of today with some stuipid ideas about the battlefeilds of our country. Also, the battle of Stirling Bridge, where was the bridge? The Schieltrom?

[Lord Condormanius]

English opression did not start in Scotland till the 17th/18th centuries.

I'm not so sure about that part. Edward I was called the "Hammer of the Scots" after all.

[The Bruce]

English oppression started in 1292 after Balliol came to the throne and Edward I began making impossible demands which lead to his 1296 invasion. The moniker "Hammer of the Scots" was granted to Edward I by the English and implies he secured a conquest of Scotland which of course he did not.

Also the entire film is filmed in Ireland

This is not true. The film was shot in both Scotland and Ireland.

[Lord Condormanius]

English oppression started in 1292 after Balliol came to the throne and Edward I began making impossible demands which lead to his 1296 invasion. The moniker "Hammer of the Scots" was granted to Edward I by the English and implies he secured a conquest of Scotland which of course he did not.



This is not true. The film was shot in both Scotland and Ireland.

A few years ago, I met a few people who were in the film when I was in Trim.

[Pantsalot]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Well, I wouldn't really call it odd. I'm sure that the political disunity in Ireland, along with being on the short end of several pretty major invasions during that period, stunted things a bit. The Irish were more or less like the Scots before the French...raiding parties with internal power struggles. Of course, that is a bit of an oversimplification. That said, prior to 800, things were looking up for Ireland...and again after 1000 or so. In fact, until the Norman conquest of Ireland, the Irish were considered quite a threat to England...which could be why Henry II was somewhat reluctant to bring an army of his own there, but instead allowed Diarmaid Mac Murchadha to hire some of his Norman subjects as mercenaries for his own cause. It wasn't really until Richard de Clare tried to assert his claim to the Irish throne that Henry really became that interested.

Wasn't Ireland being heavily raided by the Norwegian Vikings along with it's own political turmoil up to
the 11th century?

The moniker "Hammer of the Scots" was granted to Edward I by the English and implies he secured a conquest of Scotland which of course he did not.

Couldn't it just imply that he beat the Scots down & put us in our place? (I really revolt saying that >.<)

[Lord Condormanius]

Wasn't Ireland being heavily raided by the Norwegian Vikings along with it's own political turmoil up to
the 11th century?

If you read my quote again, you will see that I was referring to the time before and after the "Vikings."

Couldn't it just imply that he beat the Scots down & put us in our place? (I really revolt saying that >.<)

I suppose it could, but it doesn't.

[Pantsalot]

If you read my quote again, you will see that I was referring to the time before and after the "Vikings."

Very true sorry for my blunder

I suppose it could, but it doesn't.

I'd ask for references to that but I'm sure you'd have them ^^

[Lord Condormanius]

I'd ask for references to that but I'm sure you'd have them ^^

In all honesty, you are saying the same thing as the Bruce, albeit less eloquently. I would tend to think that the moniker refers to the continuous (hammer-like) nature of his campaigns against the Scots.

I don't think there is any absolute and definite answer. I'm not even sure when he was given this name, as the inscription on his tomb is from long after his death. That is, I am not aware of any evidence that he was called this during his lifetime.