Battle of Fa'kirk (oppidum varie capelle) 1298?

Question

Ok we know the film 'braveheart' was riddled with ludicrous inaccuracies. What we know is that longshanks on his march north stopped at Kirkliston, a known templar stronghold. Did he there enlist the support of the templars in the forthcoming battle? Was the banner of the templars raised at the battle as a signal for the Comyns and their cavalry to leave the field and abandon Wallace and his schiltroms to their fate?
The one piece of compelling evidence is that the only English losses of note were Br. Brian Le Jay and Br. John de Sawtry the two most prominent templar knights of their day. Their slaying has all the hallmarks of Wallace's distinctive style as was his killing of the Sherif of Lanark 2 years earlier?
Most ironic, in view of the fact that the Brus, who gave refuge to these same templars after their 'discomfiture' at the hands of Philip the Fair in 1309, used them to so deadly effect in 1314!

Answer 1

Well, answering your question, no, nothing of what you have said can be verified in historical record. But it make a great story and I wish I could tell you it was true (I admire the Templars too).

You could argue that Wallace probably fell into a trap planned by Longshanks (who was smart enough not to let himself be pinned in a small bridge and lose the effect of his cavalry) and the Scottish nobles rightfully fled from the battlefield to save their lands and skins. And the templars died because they usually were frontline solders.

De Bruce's use of Templars at Bannockburn is only a legend. I also think it's true story, but it cannot be verified by history, and it's suspect because the order was disbanded by then. It seems Scotland didn't touch them because De Bruce was then excommunicated, but the only known place where the Templars were aboslutely not touched was Portugal; everywhere else they either were arrested or absorved into other military orders.

Answer 2

Yes, Braveheart was a fictionalisation of historic events. It basically tells a story about Wallace, rather than give the definitive historical biography. For example the film makes no mention of Wallace sacking York where Wallace had every person in the city from the oldest crone to babies killed. I think the film is designed as an entertainment not a documentary.

I think the involvement of the Templars in these events can be speculated but there is no proof either in accounts or archaeologically that this happened. But as I like to say "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" so it may well have been the case.

Answer 3

Is there a question here? I really can't see it or there are too many to find what you are really asking!