William Wallace wore a kilt

BraveHeart movie

For live role play a wonderful source of information on how best to dress a Larp Scotsman. Long kilts and studded leather armor round off the picture for a "Larp Scotsman". The film itself is set in the Middle Ages around 1300. However, the first real "kilt" was first mentioned historically in 1594.

Historians suspect, however, that a type of kilt was worn by the non-aristocratic population in the form of a belt fastened blanket, which said nothing about the origin or the "clan"! It was more of a replacement for the non-existent jacket. The kilt from 1594, on the other hand, stated which clan you belonged to and which region of the country you came from, with elaborate, colored checked patterns.

The Scottish knights and warriors were definitely not wearing kilts at the time of "William Wallace" !! The Scottish armed force was described by English soldiers of the time as a large "colorless mass" moving towards them.

The first battle of the film took place on September 11th, 1297 at "Stirling Bridge", this bridge, which it was actually about, does not appear in the film! Pity!

The battle at the end of the film took place on July 23-24, 1314 at "Bannockburn". At that time "William Wallace, Braveheart" was already dead. The battle was led by Robert the Bruce, who fought with about 6000-10,000 Scots against an overwhelming force of 20,000 Englishmen. However, the Scots were able to encircle the English between them and the river, near Stirling Castle, and won the battle on July 24, 1314.

A great film to serve as a Larp model, if you want to stay historically correct, ... if you want to play a Scotsman from 1200 - 1300, ... change the kilt

Thore "Pumperl" Volkaarson, (Thanks to James Gray for the information):

  • What I like about this film is that William Wallace really existed. In reality, however, he was not a common man, but a nobleman - PatrickC In my opinion, the biggest problem with Bravheart is its strong nationalistic coloring. On the one hand the image of the English (every Englishman is either profoundly angry or gay), and on the other hand the political subtext that Gibson provides. The picture drawn there of the "Scots" as a people who understand and describe themselves so is very anachronistic - around 1300 such a modern national feeling (just think of the sentence "I do not serve a king, only Scotland!") Is simply out of place. In general, the film overflows with American ideology, which is noticeable, among other things, in the almost inflationary use of the word "freedom". In my opinion, Gibson has delivered a political film that is dangerously reminiscent of the questionable, ideology-pregnant propaganda films by Sergei Eisenstein. - DanielJ
    • I think it's a shame that the Scots are portrayed in such a barbaric way. At least the nobles from the lowlands could hardly be distinguished from other knights from England or the rest of Europe. Robert the Bruce in particular has organized an astonishingly modern army with modern spit tactics and good equipment. That is already badly belittled. Armor, weapons and clothing on both sides are pure fantasy. A shame, nice film but historically irrelevant. Andrej Pfeiffer Perkuhn

:::: A historically correct and, above all, very amusing discussion of Braveheart can be found on Popcorn & Chainmal. AlexJahnke


More info: Braveheart the movie


Back to LarpFilme