In film "Braveheart", William Wallace played by Mel Gibson dies shouting "Freedom!!". But considering the concept or term of "freedom" became popular after John Locke and JS Mill, is this historically accurate or possible? I don't know much about history, so any expert's opinion would be appreciated.) Thank you in advance.
2007-05-15 15:07:06 · 9 answers · asked by rap1zip1 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
I am not questioning his historical achievement. My question is about the use of the specific term "freedom" in the film.
2007-05-15 15:09:21 · update #1
Seriously -- this is the best question I've seen on these pages in long time -- congratulations.
I understand exactly what you mean. The answer to your question is "no." He actually means something different from what modern people mean by the term. The concept of freedom didn't emerge from the mists of history full blown. Like any other living thing it started small and grew larger over time.
When John Milton wrote his empassioned 1644 plea for the liberty of speech (Areopagitica) he wasn't arguing for free speech for everyone, only for those who thought as he thought.
Likewise, when the Pilgrims founded the Massachusetts Bay Colony to escape religious persecultion in England, they merely established their own religious community and preoceeded to persecute those who dissented from THEIR views.
The idea that "rights" belong not only to me but also to those who disagree with me took a LONG time to develop. And if you want to know the truth, is still very rare today outside of a handful of nations.
No, William Wallace was a brave Scot, to be sure. But he was only looking for freedom from the English overlord, and to support his man as King of the Scots. He would have no problem at all mowing down those who supported another. Like the others of his age -- for Wallace -- freedom meant "Freedom for people like me."
Excellent question. Cheers, mate.
2007-05-15 23:09:39 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Consider the nature of man and ask the question again
The implication of your question is that the nature of men has somehow changed - That in the feudal systems men wanted the oppression
There is good cause for the thought in some respect
Today our working class insist on slavery and calls it freedom
The words say free - the actions say slave
It is not out of the realm of belief to think that today's slaves who claim to be free may have existed then
Nor is it out of the realm of belief to think that the oppressor was no where near as sophisticated as it is now
As such the deception was not so great
if this is the case The nature of man has not changed the deception has or at least the quality thereof
Cesar said "Give them bread and circuses and they will not notice the state of the roads or the aqueducts "
Imagine what Cesar could have gotten away with if he had a TV and an X box ?
2007-05-15 15:15:06 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Freedom probably isn't the best word to use, for it is not meant to be used in the context in the 13th century that we have today. Wallace was fighting for the Kings of Scotland to be able to rule the nation for themselves, not for individual people to be free.
Freedom has more than one context, and in order to view History in it;s correct context, one must notice the differences between the use of words then and their meanings now. Freedom is a prime example.
2007-05-15 15:16:14 · answer #3 · answered by Rcj 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Mel Gibson stated that his theory for the action picture have been the legends of William Wallace, he never apologized for the huge discrepancies from historic certainty. i think of it is okay. Even Shakespeare substitute into greater prepared on historic legends than he substitute into with accuracy. As they stated in the loo Ford action picture, "while the legend will become certainty, print the legend." however the main gaping historic errors substitute into that the spouse of Edward II substitute right into a youthful toddler on the time of the execution of William Wallace. there's no evidence that they ever met. in spite of the undeniable fact that, simply by fact that as many as a hundred million people of English descent ought to be descendants of Edward III, that is an exciting theory that he could have been the illegitimate toddler of William Wallace. The personalities of the characters (William Wallace, Edward I, Edward II) greater healthful with the historic concept of the lads.
2016-11-23 16:11:16 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What William Wallace was fighting for was independence from England. At best, freedom from tyranny.
2007-05-16 10:01:18 · answer #5 · answered by rohak1212 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think the concept of freedom from foreign oppression existed in the 13th Century. Use of the concept, if not the word, didn't seem unlikely to me.
2007-05-15 15:15:30 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would only have applied to the nobles and feudal landlords. Depiction of society was also ridiculously inaccurate in that film. Sorry you have got so much flak for questioning such total bs.
2007-05-15 17:22:50 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
he was fighting for scotlands freedom from england. though probably not for individual rights like we have today. anything would have been better than what the scots had to live with at that time, and england wonders why the irish hate them.
2007-05-15 15:12:27 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I guess you are splitting hairs. He may have not shouted that at his death, but that was what he wanted, Scotland to be free of British rule and to restore the Scottish kings to the thrown.
2007-05-15 15:13:42 · answer #9 · answered by Jackie Oh! 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋