Braveheart Surgery

The movie cover everyone has seen

Ah Braveheart, Mel Gibson's 1995 historical epic, a film which re-opened the door for that long forgotten genre.  Wait... did I just call Braveheart a historical epic?  It would be better catalogued as a fantasy, since it has about as much realism in it as Lord of the Rings.  Yes readers, today's blog is going to detail all the things Mel got wrong about the life and times of William Wallace.    

Now before I begin let me preface this entire article by saying this: Braveheart is an enjoyable movie, I own it on DVD, It has great production values and is a movie of immense quality, much better than most of the dribble out there now.  The acting for the most part is good, as is the story, I would rate this movie as a 4 out of 5.  That said, this movie has a huge amount of historical inaccuracies, and not little things like the Alamo chapel being to close.  I understand that facts must be sacrificed for the story and I am all for that.  However the "truth" as presented by this film is borderline Oliver Stone "JFK" territory (that is a whole other article in itself).  So I'm not going to nitpick over him wearing a kilt (Kilts did not become common garments of highland soldiers until the 1600's, Braveheart taking place in the 1300's), no I'm going to focus on the real important changes to history that really get under my skin.

Robert the Bruce, the primary victim of Braveheart

Robert the Bruce, yeah the guy who betrays poor Mel when he loses at the Battle of Falkirk, never betrayed William Wallace!  Whaaat??!!  It is true that during the war the Bruce did change sides, however he was not present at Falkirk, nor did ever betray Wallace directly.  Without going into detail over the Scottish wars for Independence, I'll try to make it clear.  Though both Wallace and the Bruce fought for Scotland, each man supported a different man for the Scottish crown (himself in the case of the Bruce).  Suffice it to say, since Wallace and the Bruce were never true allies, Robert never could have betrayed Wallace (and not in a manner so melodramatic, ughhh).   

 Princess Isabella was 10 during the events of the film.

The caption basically sums up my problem with this character.  She wasn't married to Prince Edward (who was bisexual not gay, he had five children) at the time, since she was a child.  I know in Hollywood you gotta sex things up, but I think I would have preferred a made up character in this case.  I mean just because two historical figures are from roughly the same time period doesn't mean they ever met or had an affair.  This would be like a movie about George Washington where he sleeps with Sacagawea.  It's insulting and plain wrong.  Sorry but William Wallace was not Isabella's baby daddy, he didn't "win" in the end over Edward the First (who by the way, died after Wallace's execution). 

Yeah Wallace didn't invent the use of pikes, it was an ancient Highland tradition, to say nothing of Classical Warfare.

So this is the last one, a fact I'm sure the movie is thankful for since I could go on.  So the big battle in the movie where Mel's guys win is known to antiquity as the Battle of Sterling Bridge.  Yes that is correct I said Bridge.  But is there a bridge in the movie? Nope.  I could talk about tactics and how the real battle unfolded, but I'll spare you.  I just wanted to see a bridge at the Battle of Sterling Bridge. 

  

Presidents Day Fun

Here's a great video everyone should check out for Presidents day.  Made in the Nineties it ends with Clinton.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vvy0wRLD5s8

Remember that uh... Alamo thing

Well its official, my love of movies has completely infiltrated my blog. I have decided to post a list of historical inaccuracies present in Braveheart soon.  Now to get us started I think I'll quickly point out an inaccuracy in the 2004 "Alamo" movie that drives me up the wall (haha not the walls of the Alamo though...ok so that was a bad joke but I'm wired on caffeine so cut me some slack).

Ok let me show you a map of the Alamo chapel complex as it was on the date of the battle, March 6 1836.

 Now I am aware that the picture is small but if you could,  please take note of the placement of the Alamo Chapel.  See how it sits back from the main "rectangle" of the walls, this is its correct and accurate position.  Now lets see where the makers of the  2004 Alamo movie put the chapel.

Look!!! The chapel has been pushed up, blasphemy I say! I know this seems minor but its an affront to all Alamo historians, especially since this movie went to great lengths to be historically accurate.  They had period correct rifles, and accurate clothing and uniforms with nary a coon-skin cap to be found.  Yet we have this Chapel debacle, a terrible horrible decision.  Oh by the way the movie is basically unwatchable and I don't recommend it, this coming from a guy who has seen a vast number of Alamo films both good and bad.

So there you have it, a taste of what you will find in my next post about all the things Crazy ole Mel got wrong with Braveheart.  (Don't even get me started on The Patriot)

The Battle of Isandhlwana

The Battle of Isandhlwana by Charles Edwin Fripp

The Skinny:
Who- 1,700 British and Colonial troops versus 15,000 Zulu Warriors.
What-  A technologically superior British army invading Zululand in present day South Africa.
Where- The British encampment under the Isandhlwana rock formation in Zululand.
When- January 22nd, 1879.
Why- Britain sought capitulation and submission of the war-like Zulu. 
Outcome-  Complete annihilation of the 24th British regiment and Decisive Zulu Victory.

Background:
On December 11th, 1878, The British High Commissioner of Southern Africa, Sir Bartle Frere sent an ultimatum to the Zulu King Cetshwayo.  The terms of the ultimatum were written to be found unacceptable and to provoke a war with the Zulus.  It did.  Interestingly, Frere acted on his own initiate, without orders of the British government, and his actions surprised both Cetshwayo and the British Colonial Secretary in London.
It would also be important to mention the weaponry that was available to the combatants.  The average British soldier was equiped with a semi-automatic Martini-Henry rifle, while the Zulu warrior only had a leather shield and assegai, (a short stabbing spear).

The British and Zulu territory in December 1878  

Prologue to Battle:

British: The army commander, Lord Chelmsford, hoped to defeat the Zulu army in the field and then proceed to burn the Zulu capital to the ground.  He divided his army into three columns and began crossing the Buffalo river into Zulu territory on the 11th of January.  His right column remained near the Buffalo river at Rorke's Drift.  His center column camped under the Isandhlwana rock formation, and Chelmsford himself was with the left column on the day of the Battle.  On the 22nd Chelmsford had sent out scouts looking for the Zulu army with no success, however at midday the Zulus were spotted in a different and more threatening location than they were expected to be.  When the Zulus saw the English scouts, the attack begun.

Lord Chelmsford

Zulu: The Zulu intended to use the same tactics Shaka Zulu (1787-1828) had developed against his enemies over 50 years ago.  The Tactic is best described as a Buffalo head with a main body of soldiers in the middle or "head" who tied down the enemy force, while the left and right flanks or "horns" encircled the enemy.  On the 22nd, when the Zulu army or "Main Impi" was discovered, they were resting.  The Zulu commanders had not intended to attack until the next day, but when they were discovered by the colonial scouts, they went into battle.  Often Zulu warriors went into battle after eating hallucinogenic mushrooms to feel invulnerable and bullet proof.  However this was not the case at Isandhlwana as the Zulu army was resting only momentarily before the battle began.



Zulu Buffalo Horn Formation as developed by Shaka

The Battle:
The British deployment played right into the hands of the Zulu Buffalo formation.  When the Zulu center attacked the British line they were repulsed time and again.  However as the British were holding their own against the Zulu center, the Zulu right "horn" was going around behind the British camp, and more importantly the Zulu left "horn" was threatening to turn the entire British flank.  However the British still may have achieved victory if they didn't start to face ammunition shortages.  Past historians have often blamed strict quartermasters who only wanted to give ammunition to their own battalions and not to the men who needed it, however recent discoveries have shed new light on the battle.  Archaeologists have discovered many unfired bullets and it has been determined that many English bullets were damaged by their own men.  To open a cartridge box it was common for soldiers to hit the container with the butt of their rifle.  However it appears that at Isandhlwana the boxes were defective and that the impact from the rifles damaged many of the bullets.  Therefore when a soldier would go to fire his gun would jam and the Zulu warriors would be allowed more time to run up and stab the British soldier with his Assegai.
Eventually the Zulu left "horn" was able to break through and complete the envelopment of the British force.  At this point the British fought with bayonets and many small groups made last stands as no quarter was given to British combatants.  In a last act of defiance two British soldiers attempted to take the flag back to one of the other British army columns, but died in vain.  By the end of the battle over 1,300 British and colonial troops were dead to an estimated 2,000 Zulu deaths.

 Map of the Battle, note how the Zulu left "horn" is turning the flank of the British right

Aftermath:

Though the British were repulsed from Zululand after Isandhlwana, they suffered a tactical defeat the next day at Rorke's Drift .  Also Chelmsford returned later in the year with reinforcements and the Zulu were humiliated at the Battle of Ulundi on July 4.  After Ulundi, Cetshwayo was captured and the Zulu became a client state of the British Empire.  However, today over 10,000,000 Zulus reside in South Africa and remain the most numerous ethnic group in the country.

Present day Isandhlwana

Still Interested?

Two films document the Anglo-Zulu war. The first, made in 1964 is "Zulu" starring Michael Caine and detailing the defense of Rorke's Drift.  The second, made in 1979, is "Zulu Dawn" starring Peter O'Toole and Burt Lancaster is a prequel which covers the Battle of Isandhlwana. 

The trailer for "Zulu"

Sources:

Barthorp, Michael. The Zulu War. Dorset: Blanford, 1984. Print.

Welcome to Shades of the Past

Hello Everyone!
I have started my first blog ever, "Shades of the Past."  My goal is to bring interesting events and people to light, giving detail to what would otherwise be briefly covered in a history course related to the topic.  I do intend to keep it light and humorous, yet as accurate as possible.  It is my intention to embed images and videos into the blog to help you better visualize what I am discussing. Finally, I hope to give you recommendations to explore the topic in different forms of media such as movies, television, or even video games.  My first topic will cover the Battle of Isandhlwana fought in 1879.  I can just sense your anticipation and excitement now... ;)