Some time ago, I spotted on Yahoo! Movies an interesting article. Actually it was a ‘Top 10’ article about the most historically inaccurate movies. The interesting part is that Mel Gibson’s movies, or the ones in which he had the lead role, appeared 3 times on that list.

In my opinion, films based on historical facts should rely entirely on historical facts. If you ask me, the director doesn’t have the freedom to play with historical events and turn them in fiction because his movie will reach more people than books and, unfortunately, many spectators will take the movie for fact.

Now, one can ask: “Wait a minute, what’s the difference between a history movie and a historical fiction book?” My answer is quite simple: almost all historical novels have a chapter at the end of the book explaining the real events that the story follows, movies don’t.

The first movie that appears in the list as you scroll down is Apocalypto. Yahoo!’s critic says “This one movie has given entire Anthropology departments migraines. Sure the Maya did have the odd human sacrifice but not to Kulkulkan, the Sun God, and only high-ranking captives taken in battle were killed. The conquistadors arriving at the end of the film made for unlikely saviors: an estimated 90% of indigenous American population was killed by smallpox from their infected livestock.” I’m sure most scholars said: “what the hell is this?”

The second one on the list is the most famous movie of Mel Gibson, Braveheart. Again, here’s what the critic said: “Let’s forget the fact that kilts weren’t worn in Scotland until about 300 years after William Wallace’s day and just do some simple math. According to the movie, Wallace’s blue-eyed charm at the Battle of Falkirk was so overpowering, he seduced King Edward II’s wife, Isabella of France, and the result of their affair was Edward III. But according to the history books, Isabella was three years old at the time of Falkirk, and Edward III was born seven years after Wallace died.” I really want to view this movie with a Scottish historian.

Finally we arrive to The Patriot. First, Mel Gibson had almost completely redefined the historical character he played. You’ve seen a perfect dad there, constantly worried about the well-being of his beloved children, but the historical fact is quite different. “Revolutionary War figure Francis “The Swamp Fox” Marion was the basis for Mel Gibson’s character, but he wasn’t the forward-thinking family man they show in the flick. He was a slave owner who didn’t get married (to his cousin) until after the war was over. Historians also say that he actively persecuted and murdered native Cherokees”.

Now this movie is hilarious if you see it through a historian’s eyes. “Plus, the thrilling Battle of Guilford Court House where he vanquishes his British nemesis? In reality, the Americans lost that one.”

Take your time and read Yahoo! Movie Presents: The 10 Most Historically Inaccurate Movies.

Maybe I’ll write about the inaccuracy of the movie Gladiator later.