Braveheart blue faced warriors

Ninthplain · Post by **Ninthplain** » Fri Aug 29, 2008 5:26 pm

Hello all,

I have read that the warriors painted blue in the movie Braveheart was not historically accurate and that the painting with blue was earlier. It was added to the movie for dramatic effect.

Can anyone tell me what time period and/or book this may be in? I am looking for a new army to work on.

Thank you in advance.

<BRIAN>

Luddite · Post by **Luddite** » Fri Aug 29, 2008 5:38 pm

Well Julius Caesar tells us that the Britons marked their bodies with vitrum (actually sort of a greenish-blue colour).

This is often assumed to mean that they painted or tattooed themselves with woad (a known cloth dye since the neolithic period), however vitrum does not translate to 'woad'.

The 'Picts' may also have been named by the Romans (Latin Picti which means painted folk or possibly tattooed folk) from their practice of going into battle naked except for body paint or tattoos.

However, woad is actually an astringent and not really any good for applying to skin or for use as tattoo dye (as its leaves scars but no pigment.

Despite this, woad myth is traditionally seen as the 'blue paint' perpetuated in the dreadful Gibson/Wallace movie fiasco...

The reference to it comes from Ceasar so that places it in the period 100-44BC. However, its clear from many historical sources, and indeed many contemporary tribal cultures, that body painting and tattooing have been commonplace throughout human tribal history, so i'd guess you can take your pick!!

Scrumpy · Post by **Scrumpy** » Fri Aug 29, 2008 5:43 pm

Hence the British tradition of bank holiday woad works ?

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Fri Aug 29, 2008 5:52 pm

NATIONAL ANTHEM OF THE ANCIENT BRITONS
Tune: Men of Harlech

What's the use of wearing braces?
Vests and pants and boots with laces?
Spats and hats you buy in places
Down the Brompton Road?

What's the use of shirts of cotton?
Studs that always get forgotten?
These affairs are simply rotten,
Better far is woad.

Woad's the stuff to show men.
Woad to scare your foemen.
Boil it to a brilliant hue
And rub it on your back and your abdomen.

Ancient Briton ne'er did hit on
Anything as good as woad to fit on
Neck or knees or where you sit on.
Tailors you be blowed!!

Romans came across the channel
All wrapped up in tin and flannel
Half a pint of woad per man'll
Dress us more than these.

Saxons you can waste your stitches
Building beds for bugs in breeches
We have woad to clothe us which is
Not a nest for fleas.

Romans keep your armours.
Saxons your pyjamas.
Hairy coats were made for goats,
Gorillas, yaks, retriever dogs and llamas.

Tramp up Snowdon with your woad on,
Never mind if you get rained or blowed on.
Never want a button sewed on.
Go it Ancient B's!!

- author unknown

ars_belli · Post by **ars_belli** » Fri Aug 29, 2008 7:25 pm

Definitely the 'woad less twavelled!'

Cheers,
Scott

Smackyderm · Post by **Smackyderm** » Fri Aug 29, 2008 10:00 pm

There is a place in the world called Scotland, and a place in the world called England.

Beyond that I don't think that movie has anything to do with this planet or the events hereupon. Too bad because Gibson's movies are usually rather good.

AlanYork · Post by **AlanYork** » Sat Aug 30, 2008 11:08 am

Gibson is renowned for disliking the British in general and the English in particular, hence his ludicrously inaccurate films; Braveheart, The Patriot and from memory I don't think Gallipoli does us any favours either.

IMO, and I believe also that of many other English wargamers, he is an odious man, and I certainly wouldn't use any of his films as a basis for wargaming, whether it be painting, army building or refights.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Sat Aug 30, 2008 3:48 pm

Despite the notoriety one could gain I would not urinate on the man if he was on fire.

carlos · Post by **carlos** » Sat Aug 30, 2008 4:28 pm

philqw78 wrote:Despite the notoriety one could gain I would not urinate on the man if he was on fire.

How about if he wasn't?

Redpossum · Post by **Redpossum** » Sat Aug 30, 2008 5:43 pm

AlanYork wrote:Gibson is renowned for disliking the British in general and the English in particular,

Well, he is Australian. Considering his ancestors were probably "transported" in chains, I mean...would you expect him to love you?

Mind you, I'm not excusing or defending the man's gross historical inaccuracies in Braveheart, just saying...

As for the Gallipoli campaign, even a totally objective, unbiased, accurate account of historical events would be pretty damning of the British high command. The fact is, they did screw the pooch badly, and squandered the lives of thousands of Australian and NZ troops.

AlanYork · Post by **AlanYork** » Sat Aug 30, 2008 6:33 pm

possum wrote:
AlanYork wrote:Gibson is renowned for disliking the British in general and the English in particular,
Well, he is Australian. Considering his ancestors were probably "transported" in chains, I mean...would you expect him to love you?

Mind you, I'm not excusing or defending the man's gross historical inaccuracies in Braveheart, just saying...

As for the Gallipoli campaign, even a totally objective, unbiased, accurate account of historical events would be pretty damning of the British high command. The fact is, they did screw the pooch badly, and squandered the lives of thousands of Australian and NZ troops.

Actually he is American, he moved to Australia as a child.

I couldn't claim to be any kind of expert on the Gallipoli campaign but my limited reading on the topic suggests that there were mistakes made by ANZAC commanders as well as the British. It's often overlooked that the British suffered heavy casualties there too, it certainly wasn't a purely Australian and New Zealander operation, not that films like Gallipoli would ever portay the truth of the matter. I say that not wishing in any way to denigrate the sacrifices of the ANZACs, one can only respect such men, I merely wish to illustrate that Mel Gibson films are not the way to go if one is looking for any kind of historical accuracy or a complete picture.

Scrumpy · Post by **Scrumpy** » Sat Aug 30, 2008 10:18 pm

possum wrote:
AlanYork wrote: As for the Gallipoli campaign, even a totally objective, unbiased, accurate account of historical events would be pretty damning of the British high command. The fact is, they did screw the pooch badly, and squandered the lives of thousands of Australian and NZ troops.

A bold attempt to win back the Ashes, that failed in the end.

mad_ulric · Post by **mad_ulric** » Sun Aug 31, 2008 9:37 pm

philqw78 wrote:Despite the notoriety one could gain I would not urinate on the man if he was on fire.

Gibson's been set alight.!!!

No one told me. Bet he'll get a film out of it. The 'last flames of christ' or some such.

spike · Post by **spike** » Sun Aug 31, 2008 11:00 pm

mad_ulric wrote:
philqw78 wrote:Despite the notoriety one could gain I would not urinate on the man if he was on fire.
Gibson's been set alight.!!! No one told me. Bet he'll get a film out of it. The 'last flames of christ' or some such.

Talking of woad and pissing, here's a QI fact for you.

Stale urine was a requirement in dying with Woad, it contains ammonia, which acts as reduction agent making the blue dye soluble (the solution goes a yellow/green colour). The dye then oxidises in the air, when the textile is removed from the dyebath and it starts to goes blue, It's fast to the textile when the ammonia is removed!

So pissing on Mel Gibson would make him go blue!

Spike

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 6:59 am

So pissing on Mel Gibson would make him go blue!

Strangling him would be more satisfying though

marty · Post by **marty** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 9:17 am

You have to watch "The Patriot" to see him really get stuck in to some genuinely evil Poms. I almost expected them to twirl their moustaches and laugh maniacally. I've always wanted to see a film that depicts the War of Independance as the righteous crusade against a bunch of ungratefull, treacherous, tax dodgers that it was.

I consider his drunken tirades vastly more amusing than his recent films.

will05 · Post by **will05** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 8:59 pm

I have to agree that history and Brave heart do not seem to converge at any point, in fact gibson and history do seem diametrically opposed. However as much as I find Gibson distasteful I don't think that hollywood and history ever really come close to each other and the woes of the world do seem to be the fault of the Europeans!!?

lawrenceg · Post by **lawrenceg** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 9:30 pm

Smackyderm wrote:There is a place in the world called Scotland, and a place in the world called England.

Beyond that I don't think that movie has anything to do with this planet or the events hereupon. Too bad because Gibson's movies are usually rather good.

Having nothing to do with this planet or the events hereupon does not prevent it from being a rather good movie.

Redpossum · Post by **Redpossum** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 1:00 am

spike wrote:
mad_ulric wrote:
philqw78 wrote:Despite the notoriety one could gain I would not urinate on the man if he was on fire.
Gibson's been set alight.!!! No one told me. Bet he'll get a film out of it. The 'last flames of christ' or some such.
Talking of woad and pissing, here's a QI fact for you.

Stale urine was a requirement in dying with Woad, it contains ammonia, which acts as reduction agent making the blue dye soluble (the solution goes a yellow/green colour). The dye then oxidises in the air, when the textile is removed from the dyebath and it starts to goes blue, It's fast to the textile when the ammonia is removed!

So pissing on Mel Gibson would make him go blue!

Spike

Is this what you mean by "taking the piss"?

Smackyderm · Post by **Smackyderm** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 6:22 am

marty wrote:You have to watch "The Patriot" to see him really get stuck in to some genuinely evil Poms. I almost expected them to twirl their moustaches and laugh maniacally. I've always wanted to see a film that depicts the War of Independance as the righteous crusade against a bunch of ungratefull, treacherous, tax dodgers that it was.

I consider his drunken tirades vastly more amusing than his recent films.

<<EDIT>> moderator removed inappropriate comment.