"Braveheart" is a piece of true historical fiction

Unless you can provide proof that I've slandered the English, I'll hold you personally responsible for slander. I suggest you concede. Well, "slander" is Pro's word. My words were "unstated generalization. " The statements that have me wondering about Pro's agenda include:"The English have a history of racism""England's history and role in creating racism""The English did rape Scottish ladies""England was indeed brutal with the Scots""England did indeed intrude on their land""Braveheart is true whether Anglo-Saxons like it or not"Further, Pro characterized Edward I as the "first true Englishman" and the first "truly English king. " He then labeled that first true Englishman as a "diabolical bigot," "power hungry womanizer" and "the quintessential Klansman. "I have countered by saying that the English were neither better nor worse than the Scottish. In truth, English and Scottish as national identities had yet to emerge in the late 13th century. Both Wallace and Edward were descendants of the Norman conquest and considered themselves French by custom, language, and heritage. Wallace would have been insulted to be called Scottish, that appellation belonging to the native underclass who he held in serfdom and contempt. Likewise, Edward would have been insulted to be called English for the same reasons except that his serfs were Anglo-Saxon. Pro has ignored these facts in favor of continued generalizations about the English, while never denying that the Scottish and English were essentially the same people. Pro has tried to make Edward somehow distinct from his generation of aristocrats by stating that Edward was Anglo-Saxon (false) and then Scandinavian (also false, except that Normans were themselves descended from Vikings). I get the impression that Pro is not aware that the Angles and Saxons were Germanic tribes distinct from the Vikings and older in origin. In short, the Scottish Wars for Independence were fought between two warlike aristocracies who shared almost identical backgrounds, motives, and propensities for rape, pillage, and invasion. Whatever distinction Pro is attempting to make between the two sides is hard to credit. We can let the voters decide whether Pro stayed on the topic of "Braveheart" or wandered off on some tangential agenda. ***********Anyhow let's see the personal stuff of William Wallace that is true. "The first act definitely known to have been carried out by Wallace was his assassination of William de Heselrig, the English High Sheriff of Lanark" (those this ring any similarities to the movie). Now most likely, he didn't do it because his girl was killed, but we don't know for sure. Grey's Scalacronica tells us that Wallace was attending Heselrig's court in Lanark at the time of the assassination. How likely would it have been for Wallace to be Heselrig's guest if Heselrig had in fact murdered Wallace's wife? So no, Marion Braidfute was almost certainly not murdered by Heselrig. [Long cut & paste from Wikipedia entry on the Battle of Stirling Bridge], followed by: Almost all of this happened in the movie. I wonder if Pro has even read his own cut & paste. .. . Wikipedia notes that Stirling Bridge was central to the battle. But "Braveheart" has no bridge. Wikipedia has Wallace holding back until half of Surrey's men crossed, then one of his captains charged the disorganized English. Braveheart has the full English calvary charging Wallace's line with Wallace in the lead. Wikipedia notes that "many English soldiers drowned. " No soldiers drowned in Braveheart, because there was no river. Wikipedia notes that the Scottish flayed the skins of English and that Wallace wore Cressingham's scalp as a trophy. How different a movie might "Braveheart" have been if it had stayed true to details like this rather than engaging in heroic fantasy? [Another long cut & paste from Wikipedia entry on the Battle of Falkirk] followed by: All of this is fact. Yes, the Wikipedia entry is generally factual. Why then does the movie get these facts so wrong? The movie has Edward trying to bribe Wallace into peace when in fact, Edward wanted a battle. The movie has Isabella warning Wallace of an English attack against which he musters, when in fact Wallace was trying to hide and got caught with his pants down. CONCLUSIONI asked Pro a couple of times to define the standard by which he could promote the statement "Braveheart" is a piece of true historical fiction. Pro made no attempt to define any standard- probably because "Braveheart" fails any rational test for historical accuracy. At best, Pro offered a few examples wherein history was "almost similar to the film. " Obviously, the same could be said of almost attempt at historical film making and does not set much of a bar. There are many ways in which "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" was almost similar to 10th Century England, but nobody would propose that "Holy Grail" a particularly accurate depiction. In fact, an argument can be made that in spite of 3-headed giants and murderous bunnies, "Holy Grail"'s depiction of legend was more carefully researched and interested in detail than was "Braveheart's". In the absence of any standard to refute, I offered seven particularly egregious re-writes of history which I consider unforgivable:1) Primae Noctis was a myth. (Pro has already conceded this point. )2) Scotland's favorite hero from this time, Robert the Bruce, is portrayed as a traitor in the film. The movie even steals Bruce's name "Braveheart. " (Pro conceded. )3) Wallace is depicted a highland commoner who seeks revenge on the English after they murdered his Dad and raped his wife. In fact, Wallace was just another Norman landholder squabbling with other Norman landholders over who had the right to to take more land and labour from the conquered native inhabitants. (Pro ignored this point)4) Isabella of France acts as ambassador and falls for Wallace, giving birth to his son as Edward III. In fact, Isabella was a baby in Wallace's time and the suggestion that Wallace is the patriarch of English monarchs is one flight of fantasy that pushes Braveheart out of any serious contention for historical accuracy. (Pro ignored)5) The Battle of Stirling Bridge is so inaccurately depicted that there is not even a bridge: the movie renames the battle and makes Wallace out to be a stout defender against the mighty English, rather than the lucky exploiter of English stupidity. (Pro ignores the differences, but concludes "Almost all of this happened in the movie". )6) The Battle of Falkirk is likewise shown to be a stout defense, only overcome by treason and barbarism. The truth is Wallace and his knights scampered as soon as the English approached, leaving the bulk of his army to die undefended by calvary. For this, Wallace was stripped of his title as Guardian of Scotland and lost much of the reputation he earned at Stirling Bridge. (Pro seems to suggest that the movie and the Wikipedia article he cut & pastes from are both factual, ignoring the many contradictions between the two).7) Showing Wallace and his men wearing kilts is a particularly egregious wardrobe error. Plaid and kilts were worn by highlanders five hundred years after Wallace's time. The suggestion that Wallace was a highlander or belonged to a clan is flat wrong. Besides which, no right-minded knight would wear a kilt on horseback or into a feudal battle, leaving his legs exposed. Details like this demonstrate that the Braveheart is more interested in projecting Hollywood cliché for American audiences than in capturing any authentic details of time or place or biography. (Pro ignored this point). Braveheart is a great heroic fantasy, but Braveheart is not history. A student wishing to learn about 13th Century Scotland would learn almost no useful facts from Braveheart. A student watching Braveheart would come away with all kinds of falsehoods about Wallace and class and warfare and Scottish nationalism and English treachery. I would argue that this kind of fantasy, clothed as it is with real names and places and events, but without respect for the truth about those places and people, is worse than just making it up.